# C_2023045EN.01003102.xml

| 6.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/31

---

Action brought on 21 December 2022 — TU v Parliament

(Case T-793/22)

(2023/C 45/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: TU (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of [confidential] (1) not to renew his contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of [confidential] (1) not to renew his contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;

| — | annul the implied rejection, which occurred on [confidential] and, in the alternative, at the latest on [confidential], of his request formally made on [confidential] to be granted the status of informant and to be protected under Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implied rejection, which occurred on [confidential] and, in the alternative, at the latest on [confidential], of his request formally made on [confidential] to be granted the status of informant and to be protected under Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations;

| — | annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint that was notified to him on [confidential]; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision rejecting his complaint that was notified to him on [confidential];

| — | declare the Parliament guilty of infringement of the rules applicable to the status of informant and of breach of the protection conferred by that status; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Parliament guilty of infringement of the rules applicable to the status of informant and of breach of the protection conferred by that status;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 by way of damages for the prejudicial effects suffered as a result of non-compliance with Articles 22a to 22c of the Staff Regulations and the applicable internal rules; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 by way of damages for the prejudicial effects suffered as a result of non-compliance with Articles 22a to 22c of the Staff Regulations and the applicable internal rules;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs;

| — | in the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the action brought by the applicant is dismissed, order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the action brought by the applicant is dismissed, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 22c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) during the pre-litigation procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 22c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) during the pre-litigation procedure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the protective rules attached to his status of informant, Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the internal rules implementing that article, and breach of the duty to provide advice and assistance to whistleblowers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the protective rules attached to his status of informant, Article 22c of the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the internal rules implementing that article, and breach of the duty to provide advice and assistance to whistleblowers.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the internal rules implementing Article 22c and, in the alternative, that the Parliament’s interpretation of those rules is unlawful or that those rules are inadequate and insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4 of the internal rules implementing Article 22c and, in the alternative, that the Parliament’s interpretation of those rules is unlawful or that those rules are inadequate and insufficient.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of confidentiality and protection of the identity of the informant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of confidentiality and protection of the identity of the informant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, unlawful positive discrimination between accredited parliamentary assistants and unlawful negative discrimination in relation to other informants, breach of the protection conferred on informants, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and breach of the right to benefit from a procedure that has at least an appearance of objectivity. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, unlawful positive discrimination between accredited parliamentary assistants and unlawful negative discrimination in relation to other informants, breach of the protection conferred on informants, infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the duty to provide assistance and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, and breach of the right to benefit from a procedure that has at least an appearance of objectivity.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of process committed by the administration in order to circumvent its obligation to ensure that the applicant suffers no prejudicial effects as a result of having disclosed information in accordance with Article 22b of the Staff Regulations. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging an abuse of process committed by the administration in order to circumvent its obligation to ensure that the applicant suffers no prejudicial effects as a result of having disclosed information in accordance with Article 22b of the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  Confidential information omitted.

---