Case T-95/18: Action brought on 12 February 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament
Date: 2018-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, civil rights, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, parliamentary allowance, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, proof, rights of the defence








C_2018142EN.01005502.xml










23.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/55





Action brought on 12 February 2018 — Gollnisch v Parliament
(Case T-95/18)
(2018/C 142/73)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul European Parliament Bureau Decision dated 23 October 2017, with the reference PE 610.437/BUR/Decision, as notified by the letter of the President of the European Parliament of 1 December with reference D 318700 and rejecting Mr Gollnisch’s complaint in appeal to the Quaestors against the decision of the Secretary-General;










—


annul simultaneously the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, notified on 6 July, that ‘an amount of EUR 275 984,23 was wrongly paid to Mr Bruno Gollnisch’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the accounting officer of the institution to recover that amount;










—


annul simultaneously the notification and the implementing measures of the aforementioned decision contained in the letter of the Director-General of Finance of 6 July 2016, ref. D 201920;










—


annul simultaneously debit note No 2016-914 signed by that Director-General of Finance on 5 July 2016;










—


award the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage resulting both from the unfounded accusations made before any conclusion of the investigation, from the harm to his reputation, from the very significant disruption to his personal and political life caused by the contested decision and the considerable amount of work he was forced to devote to those proceedings;










—


also award him also the sum of EUR 28 000 by way of costs respect of expenses incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, photocopying costs and lodging this action and the annexed documents;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the full costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas directed specifically against the Bureau’s decision.






1.


First plea in law, alleging several infringements of essential procedural requirements by the defendant at the time of the adoption of the contested decision. According to the applicant, the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision infringes the right of the applicant to have his case heard by an impartial body. The defendant also allegedly infringed his rights of defence. The contested decision is thus based on an incorrect statement by the representative of the Quaestors and its statement of reasons is insufficient in so far as it fails to answer several of the complaints raised by the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging distortion of the facts leading to the adoption of the contested decision.




The applicant also raises the pleas which it has made against the Secretary-General’s decision complained of before the Bureau of the Parliament, in that the latter maintained the contested decision without taking proper account of the arguments put forward by the applicant.






1.


First plea, alleging defects in the procedure which led to the adoption of the Secretary-General’s decision, relating to the Secretary-General’s lack of competence, to an infringement of the rights of the defence, to a reversal of the burden of proof, to an inadequate statement of reasons, as well as failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.










2.


Second plea, alleging an infringement of the civil rights of parliamentary assistants, of the discriminatory treatment of the applicant, of misuse of powers, of infringement of the independence of Members and failure to understand the role of local parliamentary assistants, as well as a failure to observe the principle of proportionality.