# C_2017014EN.01004901.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/49

---

Action brought on 10 November 2016 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament

(Affaire T-788/16)

(2017/C 014/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Dominique De Geoffroy (Brussels, Belgium) and 14 others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016;

| — | annul the decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean;

| — | annul the decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Mrs Françoise Joostens’ application for leave but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3.5 days; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Mrs Françoise Joostens’ application for leave but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3.5 days;

| — | annul the decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Françoise Joostens; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Françoise Joostens;

| — | in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants invoke six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea, alleging a complete failure to state reasons on the part of the defendant, in the light of the failure to respond to objections raised by the applicants against the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016 (‘the contested Guidelines’
  ). |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea, alleging a complete failure to state reasons on the part of the defendant, in the light of the failure to respond to objections raised by the applicants against the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016 (‘the contested Guidelines’
  ).

| 2. | Second plea, alleging that the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the Parliament was unlawful, as a result of infringement of the Staff Regulations and rights recognised by internal rules governing the management of leave, and infringement of the applicants’ acquired rights.






  — | Therefore, the two applicants addressees of the three individual contested decisions, respectively of 2 June 2016, 13 June 2016 and 12 April 2016, the first two decisions refusing to grant leave applied for by them, and the last decision accepting the application for leave made by one of them but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3,5 days, consider that those individual decisions invoke the same plea in law seeking annulment of those decisions. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea, alleging that the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the Parliament was unlawful, as a result of infringement of the Staff Regulations and rights recognised by internal rules governing the management of leave, and infringement of the applicants’ acquired rights.

—

Therefore, the two applicants addressees of the three individual contested decisions, respectively of 2 June 2016, 13 June 2016 and 12 April 2016, the first two decisions refusing to grant leave applied for by them, and the last decision accepting the application for leave made by one of them but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3,5 days, consider that those individual decisions invoke the same plea in law seeking annulment of those decisions.

| 3. | Third plea, alleging a failure to consult the members of the Parliament staff during the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the latter, which amounts to an infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea, alleging a failure to consult the members of the Parliament staff during the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the latter, which amounts to an infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

| 4. | Fourth plea, alleging a failure to weigh the interests of the institution with those of the interpreters, disregard for the principle of proportionality, an abuse of law, an error of assessment and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care, committed by the defendant institution in adopting the contested Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea, alleging a failure to weigh the interests of the institution with those of the interpreters, disregard for the principle of proportionality, an abuse of law, an error of assessment and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care, committed by the defendant institution in adopting the contested Guidelines.

| 5. | Fifth plea, alleging discrimination caused by the adoption of the contested Guidelines between interpreters and other officials and staff. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea, alleging discrimination caused by the adoption of the contested Guidelines between interpreters and other officials and staff.

| 6. | Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of legal certainty and predictability as regards exceptions and special cases provided for by those Guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of legal certainty and predictability as regards exceptions and special cases provided for by those Guidelines.

---