CELEX: 62017TN0218
Language: en
Date: 2017-04-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-218/17: Action brought on 12 April 2017 — HF v Parliament

6.6.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 178/30
            
         Action brought on 12 April 2017 — HF v Parliament
   (Case T-218/17)
   (2017/C 178/44)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Declare the present action admissible and well-founded;
               In consequence,
            
         
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of 3 June 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 11 December 2014;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Insofar as necessary, annul the decision of 4 January 2017, received on 11 January 2017, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 6 September 2016;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay damages set ex aequo et bono at EUR 90 000 in compensation of the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of the right to be heard and infringement of the principle of an adversarial process.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging procedural errors such as to vitiate the contested decision and partiality in the procedure followed by the Committee.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, [infringement] of the obligation to provide assistance and the duty of care and infringement of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations.