CELEX: 62017TN0148
Language: en
Date: 2017-03-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-148/17: Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament

8.5.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 144/52
            
         Action brought on 7 March 2017 — Troszczynski v Parliament
   (Case T-148/17)
   (2017/C 144/71)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mylène Troszczynski (Noyon, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017 in so far as it maintains the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016 to recover the amount of EUR 56 554 from Ms Mylène Troszczynski;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 23 June 2016 taken pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 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 of Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, establishing that the applicant had a debt in the amount of EUR 56 544 in respect of amounts unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, giving reasons for its recovery and authorising the officer responsible, in collaboration with the institution’s accounting officer, to proceed with the recovery of those amounts pursuant to Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul debit note No 2016-888, undated, informing the applicant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 23 June 2016, for recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the debit note of 29 June 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay Ms Mylène Trosczcynski the amount of EUR 50 000 as reimbursement of recoverable costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The sums which are the subject of the present dispute relate to the employment contract of indefinite duration concluded between the applicant and a local assistant working as a full-time parliamentary assistant in the Member State in which the applicant was elected. The defendant questions, on the basis of certain evidence concerning the posts held by the local assistant within the political party to which the applicant belongs, whether the applicant complied with the obligations under Articles 33, 43 and 62 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament.
   In support of the action, the applicant argues that, in the present case, the contested measures are vitiated by defects affecting their external legality relating, in particular, to the lack of competence ratione materiae of the author of the act, the failure to state reasons and the failure to comply with essential procedural requirements.
   She also claims that the internal legality of the contested measures is vitiated by defects relating to the non-existence of the facts alleged, the determination of the party who bears the burden of proof, infringement of the principle of proportionality, interference with the political rights of local assistants, misuse of powers, the discriminatory nature of the disputed measures and the existence of fumus persecutionis, infringement of the independence of parliamentary representatives, the prohibition of any imperative mandate, infringement of the principles of una via electa and non bis in idem, in so far as the President of the European Parliament forwarded to OLAF factual material leading to the presumption that the alleged irregularities concerning the applicant had occurred.