Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62024TN0480

Case T-480/24: Action brought on 17 September 2024 – Le Pen v Parliament

OJ C, C/2024/6446, 4.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6446/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6446/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2024/6446

4.11.2024

Action brought on 17 September 2024 – Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-480/24)

(C/2024/6446)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Marie Le Pen (Rueil-Malmaison, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

hold that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 July 2024 was adopted in breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations;

hold that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 July 2024 was adopted in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 8 July 2024, notified to his representatives on 18 July 2024, making a claim for payment against the applicant for an amount of EUR 303 200,99 in respect of sums unduly paid in respect of budget line 400 and stating reasons for the recovery of those sums;

annul debit note No 7040001694 of 9 July 2024;

order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety.

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 breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations. The applicant criticises the contested decision for not taking into account the decision on disjoinder issued on 3 July 2024 by the Paris Criminal Court having regard to the state of his health. In his view, the contested decision can be criticised in so far as it does not take into account the fact that the applicant will not be aware of the purpose, significance or scope of the proceedings brought before the General Court and will not be able to effectively prepare for or follow them.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair trial.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6446/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top