CELEX: 62016TN0140
Language: en
Date: 2016-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-140/16: Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

30.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/37
            
         Action brought on 5 April 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-140/16)
   (2016/C 191/50)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (La Trinité-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.P. Le Moigne, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, dated 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 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, finding a debt on the part of the applicant amounting to EUR 320 026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the applicant that a debt had been found with respect to him by decision of the General Secretary of 29 January 2016, recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the implementing measures for the Statute for Members and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of reimbursement of 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 external legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into two parts.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, according to which it is the Bureau of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General which has competence with respect to financial decision affecting political parties and, therefore, the Members.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament could not modify the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary General fails to show that the President of the Bureau of the European Parliament delegated powers to him enabling him to adopt and notify the contested measures concerning the regulation of financial questions affecting a Member.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the internal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into four parts.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the Parliament failed to adduce any evidence justifying the contested measures.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Third part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by misuse of powers and of procedure.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Fourth part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory.