CELEX: 62017TN0446
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-446/17: Action brought on 15 July 2017 — TK v Parliament

23.10.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 357/15
            
         Action brought on 15 July 2017 — TK v Parliament
   (Case T-446/17)
   (2017/C 357/19)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: TK (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare this action admissible and well-founded;
            
         In consequence:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 26 August 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claims of 28 April 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Insofar as necessary, annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 5 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 25 November 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay damages in compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 26 April 2017 rejecting the applicant’s claim of 16 January 2017 inasmuch as it failed to remedy the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm and order the defendant to pay damages in compensation for the applicant’s non-pecuniary harm valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 25 000;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two principal pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, concerning the decisions of 26 August 2016 and 5 April 2017 and comprising three parts:
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           as regards the application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the first claim of 28 April 2016, the first plea in law alleges infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of Article 296 TFEU, of Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and breach of the duty of care;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           as regards the application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the second claim of 28 April 2016, the first plea alleges infringement of Article 2(2) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations and of Article 41 of the Charter;
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           as regards the application for compensation, the applicant argues that the decisions caused her non-pecuniary harm which cannot be remedied by the annulment of the contested decisions.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, concerning the decision of 26 April 2017, alleging [infringement] of Article 41 of the Charter committed by the defendant and breach of its obligation to state reasons and duty of care, in that it claims that the decision against which the applicant brought a claim has been annulled and the decision taken to open an enquiry, and in that it deduces therefrom that there is no need to grant her claim for compensation. The applicant is also of the view that she has shown that she has suffered separate harm which cannot be remedied by annulment of the contested decision. In her submission, the defendant therefore should not only have annulled the decision challenged by the claim but should also have made good that harm.