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)

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

The first ground alleges lack of competence of the author of the act:

it is the Bureau of the European Parliament, and not the Secretary-General, that is responsible for financial decisions;

there was no delegation of powers by the Secretary-General;

objection of illegality on the basis of infringement of the independence of members of the European Parliament and of the right to an impartial process.

The second ground alleges infringement of the principle of ‘electa una via’:

the President of the Parliament referred the case to OLAF and also initiated legal proceedings in France.

The third ground alleges infringement of the rights of defence:

the President of the Parliament breached the presumption of innocence;

the Parliament’s administration was both judge and party;

the Parliament varied the claims invoked throughout the course of the procedure;

the Secretary-General refused the appellant a hearing.

The fourth ground alleges reversal of the burden of proof:

the Parliament required the appellant to prove that she had not engaged in any wrongdoing even though it had no evidence to substantiate any serious suggestion that such wrongdoing had occurred.

The fifth ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons:

the sole ground relied on was the publication of an organisational chart which lacked any probative value.

The sixth ground alleges infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations:

there was no rule laying down a list of documents to be submitted; thus the appellant was subject to the arbitrary actions of the Parliament.

The seventh ground alleges prejudice to the civil rights of parliamentary assistants:

the Parliament prohibits assistants from engaging in political activities.

The eighth ground alleges discriminatory treatment, ‘Fumus persecutionis’, and misuse of power:

the appellant has been subjected to this procedure by reason of the political hostility of the President of the European Parliament.

The ninth ground alleges prejudice to the independence of members of the European Parliament:

the work of parliamentary assistants is not limited to legislative work.

The tenth ground alleges a lack of factual basis:

the Parliament merely stated that the documents supplied by the appellant had no probative value even though those documents provided evidence of the work carried out by the assistant;

the Parliament is unable to substantiate its claims.

The eleventh ground alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality:

the organisational chart (the starting point of the proceedings instituted by the President of the Parliament) was published in February 2015, although the recovery of sums unduly paid dates back to August 2014.

____________