CELEX: 62019TN0087
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-87/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust

15.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 139/68
            
         
      Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust
      (Case T-87/19)
      (2019/C 139/71)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Jon Broughton (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Eurojust
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decisions of Eurojust 62/2018/AD of 20 November 2018, AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27 of 4 May 2018 and the recovery decision of 4 May 2018 pursuant to Article 270 TFEU;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  declare that French must be regarded as Mr Broughton’s second language and Dutch as his third language;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  determine that the recovery ordered against the applicant is unlawful and cease it and determine that the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts recovered by Eurojust;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  determine that Eurojust must return the applicant to the same legal position he was in prior to the contested decisions;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order Eurojust to pay the costs of these proceedings.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, directed against all the contested decisions
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision is factually unfounded;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle.
                           
                        
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, directed against orders AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27: the decisions are factually unfounded
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the facts underpinning the decision cannot support the decision;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the facts were incorrectly laid down;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the evidence was assessed incorrectly.
                           
                        
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, directed against the recovery decision
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision is factually unfounded;
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              the decision was insufficiently reasoned.