CELEX: 62020TN0171
Language: en
Date: 2020-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-171/20: Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament

8.6.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/27
            
         
      Action brought on 18 March 2020 — Rochefort v Parliament
      (Case T-171/20)
      (2020/C 191/36)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Robert Rochefort (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Stasi, J. Teheux and J. Rikkers, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 17 December 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul debit note No 7000000071 of 22 January 2020 ordering the recovery of EUR 27 241;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Parliament 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 17 December 2019 to proceed with the recovery of sums unduly paid to the applicant in respect of parliamentary assistance and the debit note relating to those sums, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging inadequate reasoning in the contested decision in so far as the Secretary-General of the European Parliament’s reasoning is ambiguous and in so far as it does not state to what extent the documents produced were not evidence of work done.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant considers that it is not for him to adduce evidence of the work of his parliamentary assistant, rather it is for the Parliament to adduce evidence to the contrary.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament are incorrect.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, concerning the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant is based on the assumption that the parliamentary assistant worked for the applicant only for a few days.