Case T-655/24: Action brought on 17 December 2024 – L v Parliament
Date: 2024-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, damages, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, equal treatment, indemnification, presumption of innocence, protection of privacy, rights of the defence, whistleblowing








C_202501115EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1115


24.2.2025






Action brought on 17 December 2024 – L v Parliament


(Case T-655/24)

(C/2025/1115)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: L (represented by: J. Petreikis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the European Parliament dated 28 May and 31 May 2024; (1)











—


declare that the European Parliament unlawfully failed to execute the judgment of the EU General Court of 7 March 2019 in T-59/17; (2)











—


order the Parliament to pay pecuniary damages in the amount of lost salaries, unemployment benefits increased by the annual inflation rates in Lithuania, the country of the applicant’s nationality, plus 6 % annually from 2016 to the day of execution of the judgment;










—


order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of EUR 100 000;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament breached his whistleblower immunity by dismissing him from his job exclusively on the basis of the data he voluntarily provided to the Parliament while being identified as a whistleblower by OLAF and recognised as such by the Director General of PERS.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have his affairs handled within a reasonable time, since he disclosed the facts in 2016, but was retrospectively dismissed from his job in 2024 with effect from 2015.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the breach of the right to the defence and access to documents.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to give reasons and a manifest error of appraisal.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of appraisal taken together with the protection against unjustified dismissal under Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘the Charter’).










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging the breach of the right to private life due to excessive intervention of the Parliament into regulating the private life of its servants.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of equality before the law and the right of self-expression under Articles 20 and 11(1) of the Charter.










9.


Ninth plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 41(1), 41(2)(a) and 41(2)(b) of the Charter during the disciplinary proceedings.






(1)  Editorial note: These are decisions of a contractual nature.

(2)  L v Parliament (T-59/17; EU:T:2019:140).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1115/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)