Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62021TN0010

Case T-10/21: Action brought on 9 January 2021 — Griesbeck v Parliament

OJ C 72, 1.3.2021, p. 32–33 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

1.3.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 72/32

Action brought on 9 January 2021 — Griesbeck v Parliament

(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.

1.

 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.

2.

 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.

3.

 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.
Top