Judgment;Information — ECLI:EU:T:2021:666
Date: 2021-10-06
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded

Action brought on 27 January 2020 — AV and AW v Parliament (Case T-43/20) Language of the case: French Parties Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers) Defendant: European Parliament Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: declare the present action admissible and well founded; annul the contested decisions and remind the defendant, if necessary, of its obligation to draw all the consequences in respect of the applicants, pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, in particular in terms of remuneration and promotion; order the defendant to pay all the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of their action against the decisions of 21 June 2019 by which the Parliament imposed on them a disciplinary penalty of downgrading by 4 grades and by 2 grades, respectively, the applicants put forward five pleas in law. First plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, on the ground that the applicants were not heard by the competent authority. Second plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of good administration. Third plea, alleging irregularities in the preparatory measures for the contested decisions. The applicants rely in that regard on the irregularity of the investigation report drawn up by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the opinion of the Disciplinary Board. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 16 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The applicants submit that the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority were required to verify the validity, in the light of Portuguese law, of the mandate of the lawyer at the hearing on 20 February 2018. They add that, in any event, once alerted to the fact that the mandate was invalid, the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority should have drawn the necessary consequences for the disciplinary procedure, in particular as regards the applicants’ lack of acquiescence to the conduct complained of and the findings of OLAF and the investigators. Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 10 of the Annex to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the penalties were not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. ____________