Action brought on 24 June 2019 — CQ v Court of Auditors

(Case T-386/19)

(2019/C 288/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CQ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Court of Auditors

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	declare the present action admissible and well-founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;

—

consequently:

—	annul the decision of the Secretary General of the Court of Auditors of 11 April 2019, notified on 15 April 2019, classifying the sum of EUR 153 407,58 as undue payment and ordering the recovery of that sum of EUR 153 407,58 (plus interest at the rate of 3.5% from 31 May 2019);

—	in so far as necessary, annul the two decisions of 4 June 2019 and 7 June 2019 of the Accounting Officer of the Court of Auditors;

—	therefore, order the defendant to reimburse the sum of EUR 153 495,84 (EUR 153 407,58 (principal sum) plus EUR 88.26 by way of late payment interest attributable to the applicant) plus late payment interest at the rate of 3.5% until full payment;

—	order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1.	First plea in law, alleging that the investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and its final report are unlawful.

2.	Second plea in law alleging, first, that the defendant did not exercise its discretion in particular as the authorising body, second, infringement of its obligation to the prove the accusation made against the applicant and, third, infringement of its obligation to state reasons.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time.

4.	Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, and alleging that there were manifest errors of assessment.

5.	Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the adage that criminal law has precedence over administrative law.

Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1), or of Article 94 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).