CELEX: 62016TN0748
Language: en
Date: 2016-10-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-748/16: Action brought on 22 October 2016 — QH v Parliament

23.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 22/38
            
         Action brought on 22 October 2016 — QH v Parliament
   (Case T-748/16)
   (2017/C 022/53)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: QH (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and S. Michiels, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of 26 January 2016 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance and, as a consequence, annul the decision of 12 July 2016 rejecting his complaint and award the applicant compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by him;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   
               1.
            
            
               First plea in law, alleging conflict of interests, breach of the rights of defence, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the appointment of the investigator, lack of independence and impartiality of the investigator and breach by the investigator of his mandate.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the obligation to state reasons for a decision closing an administrative investigation.
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the right to good administration and duty of care.
            
         
               5.
            
            
               Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error in the assessment of the grounds for moral harassment.