7.5.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 161/17 |
Appeal brought on 6 February 2018 by Sophie Montel against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2017 in Case T-634/16, Montel v Parliament
(Case C-84/18 P)
(2018/C 161/20)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Appellant: Sophie Montel (represented by: G. Sauveur, avocat)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should reverse the judgment under appeal and thus:
— |
annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 June 2016, notified on 6 July 2016, stating that ‘a sum of EUR 77 276,42 was wrongly paid to Ms Sophie Montel’ and ordering the authorising officer responsible and the institution’s accounting officer to recover that sum; |
— |
annul also debit note No 2016-897 signed by the Director-General for Finance on 4 July 2016; |
— |
make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant as compensation for the non-material harm that she has suffered as a result of the unfounded accusations made before the enquiry was finalised, the harm to her reputation, and the very significant disruption to her personal and political life occasioned by the contested decision; |
— |
make an appropriate order as to the sum to be awarded to the appellant in respect of the costs of the proceedings; |
— |
order the European Parliament to pay all costs. |
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
1. |
The first ground alleges lack of competence of the author of the act:
|
2. |
The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:
|
3. |
The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:
|
4. |
The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:
|
5. |
The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:
|
6. |
The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:
|
7. |
The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:
|
8. |
The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:
|
9. |
The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:
|
10. |
The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:
|
11. |
The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:
|