CELEX: 62019TN0799
Language: en
Date: 2019-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-799/19: Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament

10.2.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 45/78
            
         
      Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament
      (Case T-799/19)
      (2020/C 45/63)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, and M. Ganilsy, 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 16 September 2019;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  annul debit note No 2019-1598 ordering the recovery of EUR 15 105;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the European Parliament 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 that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second 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 were incorrect.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging a reversal of burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is not for him to adduce evidence as regards the work of his parliamentary assistant; rather, it is for the Parliament to prove the contrary.
               
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant implies that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.