CELEX: 62020TN0036
Language: en
Date: 2020-01-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-36/20: Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament

6.4.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 114/10
            
         
      Action brought on 22 January 2020 — IF v Parliament
      (Case T-36/20)
      (2020/C 114/09)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: IF (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision 16 April 2019 relieving the applicant of her duties as Deputy Secretary General of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 1 000 in compensation for the impossibility to restore the applicant in her original legal position, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay 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 lack of competence of the author of the act and breach of ‘the principle of congruent forms’.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              It is argued in that regard that, whereas the contested decision was adopted by the Presidency of the Group, it should have been adopted by the Bureau thereof.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard before a measure affecting one adversely is taken.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              It is argued in that regard that the applicant was not given the opportunity to effectively put forward her point of view, before the contested decision was adopted.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have one’s affairs handled fairly, impartially and carefully, and failure to state adequate reasons.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              It is argued in that regard that:
                              
                                          —
                                       
                                       
                                          the Presidency was not presented with all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality, before adopting the contested decision; and
                                       
                                    
                                          —
                                       
                                       
                                          in endorsing the note of the Secretary General of the Group of 12 April 2019, which contained erroneous grounds, the Presidency tainted the contested decision with the same defect.