# C_2019139EN.01006801.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/68

---

Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust

(Case T-87/19)

(2019/C 139/71)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Jon Broughton (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: Eurojust

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decisions of Eurojust 62/2018/AD of 20 November 2018, AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27 of 4 May 2018 and the recovery decision of 4 May 2018 pursuant to Article 270 TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decisions of Eurojust 62/2018/AD of 20 November 2018, AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27 of 4 May 2018 and the recovery decision of 4 May 2018 pursuant to Article 270 TFEU;

| — | declare that French must be regarded as Mr Broughton’s second language and Dutch as his third language; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that French must be regarded as Mr Broughton’s second language and Dutch as his third language;

| — | determine that the recovery ordered against the applicant is unlawful and cease it and determine that the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts recovered by Eurojust; |
| --- | --- |

—

determine that the recovery ordered against the applicant is unlawful and cease it and determine that the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts recovered by Eurojust;

| — | determine that Eurojust must return the applicant to the same legal position he was in prior to the contested decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

determine that Eurojust must return the applicant to the same legal position he was in prior to the contested decisions;

| — | order Eurojust to pay the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Eurojust to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, directed against all the contested decisions






  — | the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, directed against all the contested decisions

—

the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully;

| — | the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation;

| — | the decision is factually unfounded; |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision is factually unfounded;

| — | the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle. |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle.

| 2. | Second plea in law, directed against orders AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27: the decisions are factually unfounded






  — | the facts underpinning the decision cannot support the decision; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, directed against orders AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27: the decisions are factually unfounded

—

the facts underpinning the decision cannot support the decision;

| — | the facts were incorrectly laid down; |
| --- | --- |

—

the facts were incorrectly laid down;

| — | the evidence was assessed incorrectly. |
| --- | --- |

—

the evidence was assessed incorrectly.

| 3. | Third plea in law, directed against the recovery decision






  — | the decision is factually unfounded; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, directed against the recovery decision

—

the decision is factually unfounded;

| — | the decision was insufficiently reasoned. |
| --- | --- |

—

the decision was insufficiently reasoned.

---