Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:816
Date: 2019-11-28
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Action brought on 7 December 2018 — Melin v Parliament (Case T-726/18) Language of the case: French Parties Applicant: Joëlle Melin (Aubagne, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer) Defendant: European Parliament Form of order sought The applicant claims that the General Court should: declare admissible the plea of illegality and, accordingly, find Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament to be unlawful; hold that the Decision of the Secretary General of 4 October 2018 lacks a valid legal basis; Principally: annul the Decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament dated 4 October 2018, notified by letter No D316037 dated 10 October 2018, taken pursuant to Article 68 of European Parliament Bureau Decision 2009/C 159/01 of 19 May and 9 July 2008 ‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 130 339.35 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery; annul the debit note No 2018-1597, demanding that the applicant pay the sum due pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 4 October 2018, ‘recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Articles 78-79 of the Financial Regulation’; order the European Parliament to pay the entirety of the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, based on plea of illegality on the grounds of breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by Articles 33 and 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament adopted by European Parliament Bureau Decision 2009/C 159/01 of 19 May and 9 July 2008, on account in particular of their lack of clarity and precision. 2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural requirements, in so far as the contested decision does not afford precise knowledge of the reasons for the refusal to admit the documents submitted as evidence of work done. Accordingly, the decision fails to state reasons, in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, enshrining the right to good administration. 3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights, in so far as she has not been heard orally by the Secretary General, but solely through a written procedure. ____________