Official Journal of the European Union

Series C

—

C/2023/17

(Case C-529/23 P)

(C/2023/17)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, M. Ecker, J.-C. Puffer, and S. Toliušio, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: TC

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2023, TC v European Parliament, T-309/21, EU:T:2023:315;

—give final judgment in the dispute before the General Court by granting the form of order sought by the Parliament during the proceedings at first instance;

—order the applicant at first instance to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court disregarded the subject matter of the proceedings at first instance, the nature of the preparatory letter of 8 January 2021 from the Director-General for Finance and the settled case-law on the consequences of the irregularity of a procedural document; in order to find that the Parliament infringed the applicant’s right to be heard and that the infringement of that right constitutes a ground for annulment of the contested decisions, the General Court could not confine itself to examining whether the grounds set out in that letter were well founded and adequate (paragraphs 91-132 of the judgment under appeal).

Second ground of appeal, alleging that, in finding that the Parliament infringed the right to be heard of the applicant at first instance in relation to his emails from 2015, 2016 and 2019 and his correspondence with the Parliament’s services, the General Court infringed the right to be heard, disregarded the rules and case-law relating to the procedure for the recovery of a Member’s parliamentary assistance allowance, infringed the principle that a Member of the Parliament’s mandate is to be exercised freely for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Electoral Act (1) and Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, (2) infringed Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, (3) and, moreover, incorrectly stated the facts of the case, without examining them in detail (paragraphs 92-104, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal).

Third ground of appeal, alleging that, in finding that the Parliament infringed the right to be heard of the applicant at first instance in relation to the personal file of the accredited assistant in question, the data regarding the use of the accredited assistant’s access card and information on the number of times protection of Parliament had been requested in respect of the accredited assistant, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons, Article 4(1)(e) and Article 9(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, the last indent of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, Article 266 TFEU and the right to be heard (paragraphs 105-124, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal).

Fourth ground of appeal, alleging that, in finding that the Parliament infringed the right to be heard of the applicant at first instance in relation to Case T-59/17, the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons, Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, Article 266 TFEU and the right to be heard (paragraphs 125-131 of the judgment under appeal).

Fifth ground of appeal, alleging that, by recognising, as the sole basis for the right to be heard, the existence of a right on the part of the applicant to require the Parliament to disclose the data necessary to enable the applicant to make observations, the General Court infringed Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter (paragraphs 90 and 91 of the judgment under appeal).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/17/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—

*

Language of the case: Lithuanian

—

* * *

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

—

15