11.9.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/51

(Case T-349/23)

(2023/C 321/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Monica Semedo (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme, L. Burguin and L. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision of 17 April 2023 finding that the acts alleged by [confidential] (1) against Ms Semedo constituted psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

—annul the decision of 17 April 2023 imposing on Ms Semedo a penalty consisting in the forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of ten days taken on the basis of the abovementioned decision;

—declare that Article 9(5) of the Bureau’s decision of 2 July 2018 on the functioning of the Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members of the European Parliament and its procedures for dealing with complaints is unlawful in so far as it does not allow the person concerned by an investigation to be heard in the presence of a person of his or her choice or even his or her lawyer;

—order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard and the rights of the defence. The applicant claims that the contested decisions were not adopted by the President of European Parliament under conditions guaranteeing that she would be heard and be able to exercise her rights of defence during the procedure before the Advisory Committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members of the European Parliament (‘the Advisory Committee’) and before the President of the Parliament. The applicant further submits that Article 9(5) of the decision of 2 July 2018 on the functioning of the Advisory Committee and its procedures for dealing with complaints is unlawful in so far as it does not allow the person concerned by an investigation to be heard in the presence of a person of his or her choice or even his or her lawyer.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, on the ground that the decision finding that the acts of Ms Semedo constituted psychological harassment is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, since the acts complained of did not fulfil the criteria set out by Article 12a(3) of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

(1) Confidential data omitted.