CELEX: 62020TN0757
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-757/20: Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament

22.2.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 62/39
            
         
      Action brought on 21 December 2020 — OT v Parliament
      (Case T-757/20)
      (2021/C 62/49)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: OT (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  declare the present application admissible;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision and, where necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action against the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 19 December 2019 imposing a reprimand on her, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), first, in that the applicant did not ‘receive orders’ within the meaning of Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, so that she cannot be accused of infringing that provision, secondly, in that she could not have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed, and, thirdly, in that she did not in any event deserve, in view of the circumstances, a disciplinary penalty.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in that the defendant never explained to the applicant what were the specific facts that led it to conclude that she ought to have known that irregularities, of which she ought to have informed her superiors pursuant to Article 21a of the Staff Regulations, had been committed.