# C_2017402EN.01003801.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/38

---

Action brought on 11 September 2017 — L v Parliament

(Case T-156/17)

(2017/C 402/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the decision of the European Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the decision of the European Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016;

| — | order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and

| — | order the Parliament to pay legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22(a), Article 22(b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules and the respective interest of the Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22(a), Article 22(b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules and the respective interest of the Union.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance under Article 24, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance under Article 24, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation.

| 7. | Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents against the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents against the applicant.

| 8. | Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.

| 9. | Ninth plea in law, alleging abusive dismissal. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging abusive dismissal.

---