- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-10/21: Action brought on 9 January 2021 — Griesbeck v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021TN0010
62021TN0010
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 72/32
(Case T-10/21)
(2021/C 72/43)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Nathalie Griesbeck (Ancy-sur-Moselle, France) (represented by: J. L. Teheux, J. M. Rikkers and G. Selnet, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
principally:
annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;
consequently,
annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and the subsequent debit note;
alternatively:
annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 5 October 2020;
consequently,
annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 18 October 2019 and reduce the consecutive debit note by an appropriate amount;
in any event;
provide the applicant with the opportunity to submit additional observations by way of subsequent submissions;
order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed the following errors of assessment. First, it ruled out that the specific circumstances of employment of the assistant concerned could have an influence on the evidence of that assistant’s work. Next, it did not take account of the time that had elapsed since the facts and the resulting loss of evidence. Lastly, it did not make use of the evidence provided by the applicant.
Second plea in law, alleging reversal of the burden of proof and infringement of the right to a fair trial. In this respect, the applicant takes the view, essentially, that it is not for her to bear the burden of proof regarding her assistant’s work.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the Bureau took the view that the full amounts paid for the assistant’s working hours should be repaid, although the reality of her work had been demonstrated only partially.