This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CN0525
Case C-525/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament
Case C-525/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament
Case C-525/18 P: Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament
OJ C 381, 22.10.2018, p. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.10.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 381/15 |
Appeal brought on 9 August 2018 by Marion Le Pen against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 June 2018 in Case T-86/17, Le Pen v European Parliament
(Case C-525/18 P)
(2018/C 381/16)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Marion Le Pen (represented by: R. Bosselut, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
set aside the judgment delivered on 19 June 2018 by the Sixth Chamber of the General Court in Case T-86/17. |
Accordingly:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 5 December 2016, taken pursuant to Article 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’(‘the Implementing Measures’), as amended, establishing a sum owed in the amount of EUR 298 497,87; |
|
— |
annul Debit Note No 2016-1560 notified on 6 December 2016, informing the appellant that a debt had been established against her pursuant to the decision of the Secretary General of 5 December 2016, relating to recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance, application of Article 68 of the Implementing Measures and of Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation; |
|
— |
make an appropriate order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant by way of compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the investigation was concluded, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision; |
|
— |
make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings; |
|
— |
order the Parliament to pay all of the costs; |
|
— |
before ruling in this case: request the Parliament to produce Ms CG’s administrative file, a record of the movements of Ms CG entering and leaving the Parliament’s seats in Strasbourg and Brussels, the anonymous letter which led to the opening of the proceedings and the OLAF file relating to the appellant and her assistant. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
The first ground of appeal is based on infringement of EU law by the General Court, errors in law and infringement of essential procedural requirements. The appellant fully justified the filing of new documents in the course of the proceedings by reason of new facts. Those documents constitute the amplification of those which had been submitted to the Secretary-General of the Parliament. The General Court had unlimited jurisdiction which required that those documents be taken into account in order to establish whether or not parliamentary assistant work had been carried out and, consequently, whether or not the recovery of undue payments was well founded. Moreover, some of that evidence was in the Parliament’s possession, but had been hidden from the appellant.
The second ground of appeal is based on infringement by the General Court of the rights of the defence and essential procedural requirements. The absence of a hearing of the appellant by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and the failure to transmit the file amount to an infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, of the right to be heard in person before any decision, even an administrative decision, is taken, of the principles of equality of arms and procedural fairness, of the right to be head by an impartial forum and of the prohibition of denial of justice stemming from the Implementing Measures, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the general principles of law. Nor did the General Court note the failure to state reasons which vitiates the decision of the Secretary-General.
The third ground of appeal is based on infringement of EU law by the General Court, errors in law and an error of legal characterisation of the facts, distortion of the facts and evidence, discrimination and fumus persecutionis, and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legality.
The fourth ground of appeal is based on misuse of power, as the judgment under appeal endorses the conduct of the Secretary-General of the Parliament, whose real objective and ultimate aim were to harm the appellant and her party.