10.7.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 221/29

(Case T-59/17)

(2017/C 221/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: L (represented by: I. Coutant Peyre, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the decision of the Parliament to dismiss the applicant dated 24/06/2016 and received on 25/07/2016;

—order the Parliament to pay non-pecuniary damages of 100 000 euros; and

—order the Parliament to pay legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22 (a), Article 22 (b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules.

2.Second plea in law, alleging absence of motivation.

3.Third plea in law, alleging obvious error of assessment.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principal of proportionality.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging absence of response by the Parliament to the applicant’s request of assistance, breach of the right to the defence, breach of the right to conciliation.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the right of access to the documents.

8.Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.