17.10.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/24

(Case T-624/16)

(2016/C 383/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: N. Fakiroff, lawyer)

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, dated 1 July 2016, notified on 6 July, relating to the wrongful payment of a sum of EUR 275 984,23 to Mr Bruno GOLLNISCH and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the Institution's accounting officer to recover that sum;

—also annul the notification and measures implementing that decision set out in the letter of the Director-General for Finance of 6 July 2016, ref. D 201920;

—annul simultaneously debit note No 2016-914 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 5 July 2016;

—award to the applicant the sum of EUR 40 000 as compensation for the non-material damage resulting all at once from the unfounded accusations made before any investigation findings were issued, the harm to his reputation, and the very significant disruption to his personal and political life caused by the contested decision;

—also award him the sum of EUR 24 500 in respect of costs incurred for fees for the provision of legal advice, the preparation of the present action, the costs of photocopying and lodging these proceedings and the documents annexed to it;

—order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety;

—in the alternative, if the Court is not entirely persuaded of the relevance and truthfulness of the applicant’s pleas of law and fact, in the interests of the sound administration of justice taking into account the undeniable relationship between the alleged facts upon which the contested decision is based, and those that are the subject of the criminal investigation initiated by the President of the European Parliament:

—stay the proceedings pending a final decision, with the authority of ‘res judicata’, delivered by the French ordinary court before which the proceedings initiated by the President of the European Parliament have been brought;

—order, consequently, the suspension of the operation of the contested decision until the end of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging the Secretary-General lacks competence to adopt the contested acts. By contrast, the Bureau of the European Parliament has competence for financial decisions relating to members and their groups.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of law, as well as the requirements related to good administration, in that the administration of the Parliament ought to have waited for the results of the investigation and proceedings it had initiated before adopting the contested acts.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence. The contested acts infringed the presumption of the applicant’s innocence, his right of access to justice, his ability to comment on any document that the administration intends to use against him, and violated his right to cross-examination.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging the unlawful reversal of the burden of proof, in that the administration of the Parliament requested from the applicant evidence of the work carried out by his assistant and his remuneration after the event.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons for the contested acts, which are of a totally arbitrary nature.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging prejudice to the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, as well as the application of inexistent or retroactive norms.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging prejudice the political rights of parliamentary assistants.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging the contested acts are discriminatory and misuse of powers that led to their adoption.

9.Ninth plea in law, alleging prejudice to the independence of members and failure to have regard to the role of local parliamentary assistants.

10.Tenth plea in law, alleging that the claims of the administration of the Parliament are unfounded in fact.

11.Eleventh plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality.