Case C-628/19 P: Appeal brought on 22 August 2019 by Csanád Szegedi against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-135/18 Csanád Szegedi v European Parliament
Date: 2019-08-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, allowances and expenses, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2019372EN.01001802.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/18






Appeal brought on 22 August 2019 by Csanád Szegedi against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 27 June 2019 in Case T-135/18 Csanád Szegedi v European Parliament
(Case C-628/19 P)
(2019/C 372/20)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Csanád Szegedi (represented by: K. Bodó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

In the appeal, Mr Csanád Szegedi claims that the Court of Justice should:






1.


as regards the first ground of appeal, inasmuch as it relates to the amount claimed in respect of the recruitment of Mr László Tibor Erdélyi and Dr József Virág as accredited parliamentary assistants, amend the judgment of the General Court, uphold the application and annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 30 November 2017 and debit note No 2017-1635 issued by the Directorate-General for Finance of the Secretariat of the European Parliament;










2.


as regards the second ground of appeal, inasmuch as it relates to the amount claimed in respect of the recruitment of Mr László Tibor Erdélyi and Dr József Virág as accredited parliamentary assistants, set aside the judgment of the General Court and refer the case back to it.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds:
First ground of appeal:






 


Infringement, in the recovery procedure before the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, of the right to a fair trial (Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’) and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)), and the principles associated therewith (principle of inter partes proceedings, principle of equality of arms, and principle of the rights of the defence), in so far as the appellant did not have access to the Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on which the decision was based, or to the evidence supporting that report. The appellant was also unable to exercise his right to be heard prior to the adoption of that decision, in breach of the provisions of Article 68(2) of the Decision of the Bureau of the Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (‘the implementing measures’). The General Court erred, in paragraph 44 of its judgment, in relying on Article 11(4) of Regulation No 883/2013, since that article does not govern the recovery procedure before the Secretary-General, but rather the procedure before OLAF. In that context, in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court incorrectly applied the case-law established in paragraph 35 of the judgment in IMG v Commission. In paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court gave a contra legem interpretation of Article 68(2) of the implementing measures, by equating the right to submit observations with the right to be heard. In paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court also misinterpreted Article 68 of the implementing measures, which governs the recovery procedure, in so far as the relevant rule does not give rise, for the appellant, to rights or obligations in relation to the submission of evidence in the procedure before the Secretary-General.




Second ground of appeal:






 


Infringement of the right to a fair trial (Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter) in the proceedings before the General Court, in so far as the latter rejected the offer of witness evidence from Dr József Virág and Mr László Tibor Erdélyi, without giving any substantive statement of reasons. The decision of the General Court rejecting that offer of evidence deprived the appellant of the possibility of defending himself as regards the substance of the case against him.