CELEX: 62018CN0303
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-303/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16, Le Pen v Parliament

201806220071970782018/C 240/313032018CJC24020180709EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180503272821Case C-303/18 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16, Le Pen v Parliament
 ---documentbreak--- C2402018EN2710120180503EN0031271282Appeal brought on 3 May 2018 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16, Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case C-303/18 P)2018/C 240/31Language of the case: French
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2018 in Case T-140/16;
         
      and accordingly,
   
            —
         
         
            annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016, notified by letter No D 302191 of 5 February 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’ as amended, finding a debt on the part of the appellant amounting to EUR 320026,23 in respect of amounts unduly paid in the context of parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery;
         
      
            —
         
         
            annul debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 informing the appellant that the decision of the Secretary-General of 29 January 2016 had found a debt on the part of the appellant and had ordered recovery of sums unduly paid in respect of parliamentary assistance;
         
      
            —
         
         
            make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that he has suffered;
         
      
            —
         
         
            make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings;
         
      
            —
         
         
            order the European Parliament to pay all costs.
         
      
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   
            1.
         
         
            Ground involving a question of public policy: Infringement by the General Court of the appellant’s rights of the defence — Infringement of essential procedural requirements
            By failing to order the Parliament to comply with Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the General Court failed to ensure a fair and adversarial debate. The Parliament has the administrative file and the OLAF file and can access those files. Evidence pertaining to the work carried out may be contained in both files without having been shared with the appellant.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Infringement of EU law by the General Court — Errors of law and errors in the characterisation of the legal nature of the facts and the evidence by the General Court — Discriminatory and, by extension, fumus persecutionis — Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of legality
            
                     a.
                  
                  
                     No enquiries in relation to other parties
                     The General Court refused to acknowledge that M. Schulz’s initiative was discriminatory, even though it was directed solely against the Front National and no other parties. Such proceedings should have been initiated in relation to all French parties, other parties in other Member States and dozens of members of the European Parliament.
                  
               
                     b.
                  
                  
                     Discrimination in relation to M. Schulz’s personal situation and his use of Parliamentary staff
                     The General Court refused to hear M. Schulz and K. Welle, even though the appellant had submitted evidence of unlawful behaviour on the part of the former President of the Parliament without any proceedings having been brought against the latter. The General Court failed to make reference to the documents supplied, which constitutes an error of fact with legal consequences.
                  
               
                     c.
                  
                  
                     Infringement of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of equal treatment
                     Contrary to the statement of the General Court, there are a number of cases of violations of the implementing measures in which the Parliament did not seek reimbursement.
                  
               
      
            3.
         
         
            Substantive unlawfulness of the contested acts
            
                     a.
                  
                  
                     Manifest error of assessment on the part of the General Court
                     Contrary to the assertion of the General Court, if the addendum constituted essential proof of the work carried out, it was for the Parliament to establish the appellant’s failure to submit it, following reminders. The General Court thus reversed the burden of proof and committed an error of fact with legal consequences.
                  
               
                     b.
                  
                  
                     Evidencing working time and mode of proof
                     The General Court misinterpreted the Secretary-General’s sentence which requires proof in relation to all the working time carried out during the relevant period, and not ‘proof of compliance with the implementing measures relating to work’.
                     The General Court cannot claim the existence of an obligation where Parliament has acknowledged that there is none, as recorded in the transcript of the hearing before the General Court, and where it is not provided for in the implementing measures. The General Court erred in law.
                  
               
                     c.
                  
                  
                     Work carried out
                     The appellant submits two new documents before the Court, on the basis of Article 127 of the Rules of Procedure.
                  
               
                     d.
                  
                  
                     Infringement of the principle of proportionality
                     Contrary to the assertion of the General Court, there was no unconditional obligation on the Parliament to recover sums in relation to all five years when only three years were at issue. That infringement of the principle of proportionality justifies the setting aside of the judgment.
                  
               
                     e.
                  
                  
                     External contracts
                     Neither the Parliament, nor subsequently the General Court, have established that J.-F. Jalkh had any professional links to third parties liable to be detrimental to the appellant or the dignity of Parliament or to lead to a conflict of interest.