Case C-38/19 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2018 in Case T-161/17, Le Pen v Parliament
Date: 2019-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Secretary General of an Institution, abuse of power, allowances and expenses, assistant, equal treatment, financial interests of members, parliamentary allowance, principle of legal certainty, rights of the defence








C_2019082EN.01002101.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/21






Appeal brought on 21 January 2019 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2018 in Case T-161/17, Le Pen v Parliament

(Case C-38/19 P)
(2019/C 82/23)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Marion Anne Perrine, known as Marine, Le Pen (represented by: R. Bosselut, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant submits that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment delivered on 28 November 2018 by the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union in Case T-161/17.




Accordingly:






—


Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament of 6 January 2017, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the European Parliament Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, finding that there was a debt in the amount of EUR 41 554;










—


Annul debit note No 2017-22 of 11 January 2017, informing the appellant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 6 January 2017, 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 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;










—


Order the Parliament to pay all of the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments







A —


Ground involving an issue of public policy: Infringement of EU Law — Errors of law — Infringement of substantive requirements — Infringement of the rights of the defence
It is submitted that the Secretary General failed to conduct a personal hearing of the appellant and also failed to forward the file, particularly the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) report.
The appellant’s rights of defence have been infringed by the General Court, particularly in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the ECHR.










B —


Infringement of EU law — Errors of law — Breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty — Error in the characterisation of the legal nature of the facts, distortion of the facts and of the evidence
The General Court distorted the meaning of the evidence produced as an annex by the appellant in her letter of 14 March 2016 addressed to OLAF.
It cannot be argued that the sums paid on the basis of the ‘artificial’ contract were not used in a manner compliant with the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. There is therefore neither distortion of the purpose or nature of those funds, and no harm has been caused to the European Parliament.










C —


Misuse of powers — Fumus persecutionis

The discrimination and unfairness against, and the withholding of evidence from, the appellant, as well as the infringement of her rights of defence, attributable to the Secretary General of the European Parliament, constitute, and ought to have constituted in the view taken by the General Court, ‘objective, relevant and consistent factors and actions taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving ends other than those pleaded or of evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case’; furthermore, they reveal, and are vitiated by, a fumus persecutionis to the detriment of the appellant.