CELEX: 62016TN0863
Language: en
Date: 2016-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-863/16: Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament

6.2.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/48
            
         Action brought on 5 December 2016 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-863/16)
   (2017/C 038/64)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)
   
      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 4 October 2016 inasmuch as it maintains only the decision to recover the sum of EUR 320 026,23 from Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Debit Note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the European Parliament to pay to 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 formal legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into three parts.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, according to which competence in respect of financial decisions concerning political parties and, therefore, Members of Parliament rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General or the Quaestors.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, according to which the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its competence. The Secretary-General, however, has not produced any proper authorisation from the President of the Bureau of the Parliament giving the Secretary-General the power to adopt and notify the decision of 29 January 2016 as regards settling financial issues concerning a Member of Parliament. Nor were the Quaestors competent to take the decision of 4 October 2016, where a ‘decision’ taken by an equally incompetent administrative authority, namely the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, had been brought before them.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Third part, alleging that the decision of the Quaestors of the European Parliament contains no statement of reasons.
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into eight parts.
               
                           —
                        
                        
                           First part, according to which the Quaestors’ decision does not seek to establish the supposedly unwarranted nature of the sums paid. It follows that the decision is incomplete, in that it concerns only the recovery of those sums. At the present stage, no decision exists concerning a finding that the sums paid to the applicant were in fact unwarranted, and the Secretary-General’s measure should therefore be withdrawn, as should the decision ordering the recovery of the sums in dispute.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Second part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Fourth part, regarding the burden of proof, inasmuch as it is not for the applicant to demonstrate that the assistant in question was in fact working for him and that the work carried out by that assistant was necessary and directly related to the exercise of the applicant’s parliamentary mandate.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Fifth part, according to which the contested measures undermine the political rights of local assistants.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Sixth part, according to which the contested measures are vitiated by a misuse of powers and abuse of process.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Seventh part, according to which the contested measures are discriminatory. In addition, the sole purpose of the contested decisions is to damage the applicant’s political activity.
                        
                     
                           —
                        
                        
                           Eighth part, alleging that the applicant’s independence as a Member of the European Parliament has been undermined.