# C_2018013EN.01002501.xml

| 15.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/25

---

Action brought on 27 October 2017 — Dreute v Parliament

(Case T-732/17)

(2018/C 013/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Dreute (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the present action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

Consequently:

| — | Annul the decision of 30 January 2017 of the Secretariat General of the European Parliament transferring the applicant from the Cabinet of the President of the European Parliament to the Directorate-General European Parliamentary Research Service, Library Directorate, of the European Parliament with effect at 17 January 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 30 January 2017 of the Secretariat General of the European Parliament transferring the applicant from the Cabinet of the President of the European Parliament to the Directorate-General European Parliamentary Research Service, Library Directorate, of the European Parliament with effect at 17 January 2017;

| — | Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s appeal of 28 April 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 20 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s appeal of 28 April 2017;

| — | If necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary General of 12 July 2017 seconding the applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Commission from 24 May 2017 to 31 December 2017, insofar as that decision is the consequence of the decisions of 30 January and 20 July 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

If necessary, annul the decision of the Secretary General of 12 July 2017 seconding the applicant, in the interest of the service, to the Commission from 24 May 2017 to 31 December 2017, insofar as that decision is the consequence of the decisions of 30 January and 20 July 2017;

| — | Award the sum of EUR 20 000 as damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the sum of EUR 20 000 as damages in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

| — | Order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the author of the contested decision, in that, in the view of the applicant, the authority with the power to decide upon his new post was the current President of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General of the Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the author of the contested decision, in that, in the view of the applicant, the authority with the power to decide upon his new post was the current President of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General of the Parliament.

| 2. | Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the decision of 24 September 2015, PERS-DGD(2015)44042 concerning the movement of posts within one Directorate General or between Directorates General. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and of the decision of 24 September 2015, PERS-DGD(2015)44042 concerning the movement of posts within one Directorate General or between Directorates General.

| 3. | Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a misuse of power. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a misuse of power.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and the duty of care.

---