Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-161/17 (OJ C 151, 15.5.2017)
Date: 2017-07-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, abuse of power, claim, debt, equal treatment, financial interests of members, principle of legal certainty, remuneration of work








C_2017231EN.01005701.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/57





Corrigendum to notice in the Official Journal in Case T-161/17
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 151 of 15 May 2017
)
(2017/C 231/74)
The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-161/17, Le Pen v Parliament, should be read as follows:

‘Action brought on 11 March 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
(Case T-161/17)
(2017/C 151/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017, adopted pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008“concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament”, as amended, making a claim against the applicant for an amount of EUR 41 554 by way of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery, and ordering the competent authorising officer, in cooperation with the accounting officer of that institution, to recover that amount in accordance with Article 68 of the implementing measures and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;










—


annul Debit Note No 2017-22 of 11 January 2017 informing the applicant that a claim for EUR 41 554 has been made against her following the Secretary-General’s decision of 6 January 2017 ordering the recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance in accordance with Article 68 of the implementing measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety;










—


order the European Parliament to pay Ms Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the recoverable costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the procedural legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into five parts.






—


First part, alleging that the power to make financial decisions concerning Members rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General.










—


Second part, alleging that the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its powers. The Secretary-General has not provided evidence of any lawful delegation of power by the President of the Bureau of the Parliament of the power to adopt and notify the contested measures in order to settle financial issues concerning a Member.










—


Third part, alleging that the contested measures do not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, and that they are of an arbitrary nature.










—


Fourth part, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.










—


Fifth part, alleging that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament did not personally examine the case-file.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into six parts.






—


First part, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.










—


Second part, alleging that there are no facts to support the contested measures.










—


Third part, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a misuse of powers.










—


Fourth part, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by an abuse of process.










—


Fifth part, alleging that the contested measures are discriminatory and that there is fumus persecutionis.










—


Sixth part, alleging a lack of independence on the part of OLAF.’