CELEX: 62018TN0590
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-590/18: Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament

26.11.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 427/97
            
         
      Action brought on 2 October 2018 — Antonakopoulos v Parliament
      (Case T-590/18)
      (2018/C 427/127)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Leonidas Antonakopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision to suspend him from his duties;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the principle of sound administration inasmuch as the administration did not hear him before adopting the decision, even though it would have been possible to hold a hearing without damage to the interests of the investigation or the service.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state adequate reasons inasmuch as the allegation of serious misconduct on which the contested decision is based is terse and vague and neither accompanied by reasons nor substantiated by precise information revealing the existence of adequate suspicions such as to lead to the conclusion that the applicant failed to honour his obligations under the Staff Regulations.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the administration could have adopted more lenient measures while satisfying the needs of the inquiry.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials inasmuch as, first, the administration failed to weigh up the interests of the applicant against those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has worked for the Parliament for almost 30 years, has excellent relations with his line managers and has had very good appraisal reports and, secondly, the fact that that decision was rapidly publicised undermines his personality and his reputation.