{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-529-23-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-529-23-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-15","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:8d311e","proof":"sha256:afeb3717f5c81f28f5eebbac1864ed17f03a4c12ec40a2a4d8ed697eb7a9d7ec","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-529-23-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Provisional text","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3 July 2025 ( * )","paragraphs":["para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Electoral Act","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"The Statute for Members","paragraphs":["para_26","para_27","para_28"]},{"title":"5         Article 21 of the Statute for Members provides:","paragraphs":["para_30","para_31"]},{"title":"3.      Parliament shall lay down the conditions for the exercise of this right.’","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Implementing M easures","paragraphs":["para_34","para_35","para_36"]},{"title":"7         Article 68 of the Implementing Measures is worded as follows:","paragraphs":["para_38","para_39"]},{"title":"3.      This article shall also apply to former Members and third parties.’","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Regulation (EU) 2016/679","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"9         Article 6(1) of that regulation provides:","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"Regulation (EU) 2018/1725","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"The Staff Regulations","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78"]},{"title":"CEOS","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"15       Article 5a of the CEOS provides:","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87"]},{"title":"Background to the dispute","paragraphs":["para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"The action before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraphs":["para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143"]},{"title":"Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"63       The Parliament claims that the Court of Justice should:","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"The appeal","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152"]},{"title":"The first part of the second ground of appeal and the third and fifth grounds of appeal","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Arguments of the parties","paragraphs":["para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169"]},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219"]},{"title":"The action before the General Court","paragraphs":["para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_235"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraphs":["para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"3 July 2025 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Appeal – Law governing the institutions – European Parliament – Rules governing expenses and allowances for Members of Parliament – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery of sums unduly paid – Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to be heard – Rig …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑529/23 P,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 August 2023,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"European Parliament, represented by M. Ecker, N. Görlitz, J.‑C. Puffer and S. Toliušis, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"the other party to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"TC, represented by D. Aukštuolytė‑Kapp, advokatė,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"applicant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, D. Gratsias (Rapporteur), E. Regan, J. Passer and B. Smulders, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Advocate General: L. Medina,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Head of Unit,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 November 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 January 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"1         By its appeal, the European Parliament claims that the Court of Justice should set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 June 2023, TC v Parliament (T‑309/21, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2023:315), by which the General Court upheld TC’s action in part and …","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"The Electoral Act","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2         Article 6(1) of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom (OJ 1976 L 278, p. 5), as amended by Council Decision 2002/772/EC, Euratom of 25 June 2002 and 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 283, p. 1; ‘the Electoral Act’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"‘Members of the European Parliament shall vote on an individual and personal basis. They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate.’","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"The Statute for Members","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"3         Article 2 of Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1; ‘the Statute for Members’) states in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"‘Members shall be free and independent.’","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"4         Under Article 4 of the Statute for Members, ‘documents and electronic records which a Member has received, drafted or sent shall not be treated as Parliament documents unless they have been tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.’","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"5         Article 21 of the Statute for Members provides:","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"‘1.      Members shall be entitled to assistance from personal staff whom they may freely choose.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"2.      Parliament shall meet the expenses actually incurred by Members in employing such personal staff.","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"3.      Parliament shall lay down the conditions for the exercise of this right.’","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Implementing M easures","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"6         Article 33(1) and (2) of the Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2009 C 159, p. 1; ‘the Implementing Measures’) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"‘1.      Members shall be entitled to assistance from personal staff whom they may freely choose. Parliament shall defray expenses actually incurred and arising wholly and exclusively from the employment of one or more assistants or the use of service providers in accordance with these implementing measures and the conditions laid down by the Bureau.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"2.      Only expenses for assistance which is necessary and directly linked to the exercise of a Member’s parliamentary mandate may be defrayed. Expenses linked to a Member’s private life may on no account be defrayed.’","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"7         Article 68 of the Implementing Measures is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"‘1.      Any sum unduly paid pursuant to these implementing measures shall be recovered. The Secretary-General shall issue instructions with a view to recovery of the sums in question from the Member concerned.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"2.      Any decision concerning the recovery of undue payments shall be consistent with the requirement that Members should be able to exercise their mandate effectively and with the smooth running of Parliament. Before any decision is taken, the Member concerned shall be heard by the Secretary-General.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"3.      This article shall also apply to former Members and third parties.’","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Regulation (EU) 2016/679","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"8         Recital 4 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1) states.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"‘The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. …’","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"9         Article 6(1) of that regulation provides:","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"‘Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"(f)      processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Point (f) of the first subparagraph shall not apply to processing carried out by public authorities in the performance of their tasks.’","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Regulation (EU) 2018/1725","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"10       Recitals 5 and 22 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39) are worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"‘(5)      It is in the interest of a coherent approach to personal data protection throughout the [European] Union, and of the free movement of personal data within the Union, to align as far as possible the data protection rules for Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies with the data pro …","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"(22)      In order for processing to be lawful, personal data should be processed on the basis of the necessity for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest by Union institutions and bodies or in the exercise of their official authority, the necessity for compliance with a legal …","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"11       Article 4 of Regulation 2018/1725, entitled ‘Principles relating to processing of personal data’, states in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"‘Personal data shall be:","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"(c)      adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they are processed (“data minimisation”);","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"(e)      kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the personal data are processed; personal data may be stored for longer periods in so far as the personal data will be processed solely for archiving purposes in the publi …","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"12       Article 9 of that regulation, entitled ‘Transmissions of personal data to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"‘1.      Without prejudice to Articles 4 to 6 and 10, personal data shall only be transmitted to recipients established in the Union other than Union institutions and bodies if:","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"(a)      the recipient establishes that the data are necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the recipient; or","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"(b)      the recipient establishes that it is necessary to have the data transmitted for a specific purpose in the public interest and the controller, where there is any reason to assume that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced, establishes that it is proportionate to transmit the personal data for that specific purpose after having demonstrably weighed the various competing interests.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"2.      Where the controller initiates the transmission under this Article, it shall demonstrate that the transmission of personal data is necessary for and proportionate to the purposes of the transmission by applying the criteria laid down in points (a) or (b) of paragraph 1.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"3.      Union institutions and bodies shall reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right of access to documents in accordance with Union law.’","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"The Staff Regulations","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"13       Article 26 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in the version applicable to the dispute (‘the Staff Regulations’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"‘The personal file of an official shall contain:","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"(a)      all documents concerning his administrative status and all reports relating to his ability, efficiency and conduct;","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"(b)      any comments by the official on such documents.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"Documents shall be registered, numbered and filed in serial order; the documents referred to in subparagraph (a) may not be used or cited by the institution against an official unless they were communicated to him before they were filed.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"The communication of any document to an official shall be evidenced by his signing it or, failing that, shall be effected by registered letter to the last address communicated by the official.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"An official’s personal file shall contain no reference to his political, trade union, philosophical or religious activities and views, or to his racial or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"The preceding paragraph shall not however prohibit the insertion in the file of administrative acts and documents known to the official which are necessary for the application of these Staff Regulations.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"There shall be only one personal file for each official.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"An official shall have the right, even after leaving the service, to acquaint himself with all the documents in his file and to take copies of them.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"The personal file shall be confidential and may be consulted only in the offices of the administration or on a secure electronic medium. It shall, however, be forwarded to the Court of Justice of the European Union if an action concerning the official is brought.’","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"CEOS","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"14       Article 1 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in the version applicable to the dispute (‘the CEOS’), provides:","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"‘These Conditions of Employment shall apply to servants engaged under contract by the Union. Such servants shall be:","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"–        accredited parliamentary assistants.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"15       Article 5a of the CEOS provides:","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"‘For the purposes of these Conditions of employment, “accredited parliamentary assistants” means persons chosen by one or more Members and engaged by way of direct contract by the European Parliament to provide direct assistance, in the premises of the European Parliament at one of its three places …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"16       It follows from the first sentence of Article 127 of the CEOS that Articles 11 to 26a of the Staff Regulations are to apply by analogy to accredited parliamentary assistants.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Background to the dispute","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"17       The background to the dispute is set out in paragraphs 2 to 26 of the judgment under appeal and may be summarised as follows.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"18       On 22 May 2015, the European Parliament (‘the Parliament’), on the basis of Article 5a of the CEOS, concluded a contract with A as a full-time accredited parliamentary assistant in Brussels (Belgium) for the purposes of assisting TC, a Member of the European Parliament, until the end of the seventh parliamentary term.","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"19       On 25 February 2016, TC requested the parliamentary authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’) to terminate that contract, on various grounds involving loss of trust, including absences without good reason and failure to comply with the rules on authorisations to engage in outside activities.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"20       Following the failure of an attempt at conciliation, the AECE notified A, on 24 June 2016, of its decision to terminate the aforementioned contract, due to a breakdown in the relationship of trust, on the ground that he had failed to comply with the rules on authorisations to engage in outside activities.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"21       On 14 April 2017, A brought an action for annulment of that decision of 24 June 2016 before the General Court.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"22       By judgment of 7 March 2019, L v Parliament (T‑59/17, ‘the judgment in L v Parliament ’, EU:T:2019:140), the General Court annulled that decision. In that judgment, the General Court found that it was apparent from the material in the file that TC was aware of A’s outside activities and tha …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"23       By letter of 8 June 2020, written in English and sent to TC by email of 30 July 2020, the Secretary-General of the Parliament informed TC of the commencement of a procedure for the recovery of sums unduly paid, pursuant to Article 68 of the Implementing Measures, for a total amount of EUR 7 …","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"24       It is apparent from paragraph 13 of the judgment under appeal that, by email of 4 August 2020, TC asked the Parliament to provide him with the following:","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"–        A’s personal file at the Parliament (all documents relating to his recruitment and work), including information on the number of times protection of Parliament had been requested ‘in respect of A’ and data relating to A’s presence (data from his parliamentary access card);","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"–        copies of the correspondence TC had exchanged with the Parliament’s representatives concerning A’s work, and","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"–        the complete file in the case giving rise to the judgment in L v Parliament .","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"25       On 4 September 2020, the Secretary-General of the Parliament sent TC a letter, drafted in Lithuanian and dated 3 September 2020, the content of which was substantially identical to that of the letter of 8 June 2020, referred to in paragraph 23 above. Attached to that letter of 3 September 2020 was a copy of the judgment in L v Parliament , and a breakdown of the sums paid by the Parliament to A.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"26       On 22 September 2020, TC reminded the Parliament of his request referred to in paragraph 24 above and he also asked it for the protocol for the conciliation procedure between himself and A in Lithuanian as well as a copy of ‘all emails from 2015, 2016 and 2019’.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"27       By email of 29 October 2020, TC sent the Parliament his preliminary observations and a number of documents, while asking to be allowed to submit further information and evidence at a later stage.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"28       By email of 20 November 2020, TC again asked the Parliament for the information which he had requested by his emails of 4 August and 22 September 2020, in particular data relating to A’s access to Parliament and copies of the emails of 2015, 2016 and 2019.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"29       By email of 24 November 2020, TC sent the Parliament further observations and evidence in addition to those sent by him to the Parliament by his email of 29 October 2020.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"30       By email of 27 November 2020, the Director-General for Finance of the Parliament (‘the Director-General for Finance’) informed TC that the time limit for submitting his observations and evidence in the context of the recovery procedure under Article 68 of the Implementing Measures had expir …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"31       By letter sent to the Parliament on 1 December 2020, TC disputed the contents of that email of 27 November 2020. In addition, he sent his requests for documents to the individuals mentioned in that email.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"32       By letter of 8 January 2021 (‘the letter of 8 January 2021’), the Director-General for Finance forwarded to TC the protocol referred to in paragraph 26 above, but refused him access to the other documents requested. Furthermore, the Director-General for Finance granted TC a period of 15 days in which to submit additional observations, which TC did on 21 January 2021.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"33       By the decision at issue, the Secretary-General of the Parliament considered that a sum of EUR 78 838.21 had been unduly borne by that institution in connection with the use of A for the period from 22 May 2015 to 22 November 2016 and that it should be recovered from TC pursuant to Article …","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"The action before the General Court and the judgment under appeal","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"34       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 May 2021, TC brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue and the debit note. In support of that action, he relied on five pleas in law.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"35       In the first place, it is apparent from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment under appeal that following a check carried out in the context of the case giving rise to that judgment, the Parliament noted that in March 2016 it had decided to suspend payment of A’s remuneration and travel expe …","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"36       It is also apparent from paragraphs 32 and 36 to 42 of the grounds and point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal that, in those circumstances, at the request of the Parliament and after hearing TC’s observations, the General Court held that the action had become devoid of p …","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"37       In the second place, after recalling, in paragraphs 45 to 53 of the judgment under appeal, the rules relating to the defrayal of parliamentary assistance expenses and the recovery of sums unduly paid in that regard, together with the relevant case-law, the General Court examined, in paragraphs 54 to 66 of that judgment, the first plea in law in the action, alleging infringement of the reasonable time principle, and dismissed it as unfounded.","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"38       In the third and last place, the General Court examined the second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, the right of access to the file and the obligation to state reasons, as provided for in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘ …","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"39       In paragraphs 74 to 79 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court examined the Parliament’s argument, summarised in paragraph 73 of that judgment, that TC could not call into question the answer given to him by the Director-General for Finance in the letter of 8 January 2021, since the two-month period laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU for bringing an action against the decision contained in that letter had expired.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"40       As is apparent from paragraphs 78 to 80 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court considered that that letter contained the Parliament’s response to TC’s request for the production of documents which he considered necessary in order to demonstrate that A had indeed performed duties of …","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"41       In the examination of the merits of the second plea in law and of certain arguments put forward in the context of the first plea in law, the General Court noted, in paragraph 87 of the judgment under appeal, that, by emails of 4 August, 22 September and 20 November 2020, TC had requested the Parliament to disclose various documents to him, namely:","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"–        the minutes in Lithuanian of the conciliation procedure between himself and A;","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"–        a copy of ‘all emails from 2015, 2016 and 2019’;","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"–        a copy of the correspondence he had exchanged with the Parliament’s representatives concerning A’s work;","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"–        the complete file in the case which gave rise to the judgment in L v Parliament ;","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"–        A’s personal file at the Parliament (‘all documents related to his recruitment and work’), including information on the number of times protection of Parliament had been requested in respect of A and the data on his presence that could be extracted from his parliamentary access card.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"42       In paragraph 88 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that the Parliament had sent TC those minutes and the documents relating to the termination of A’s contract. By contrast, according to the General Court, by letter of 8 January 2021, the Parliament refused to send TC the other documents referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"43       The General Court held, in paragraph 90 of the judgment under appeal, that where a Member is requested to provide the Parliament with proof that an accredited parliamentary assistant worked for him or her, in connection with his or her parliamentary mandate, that member may, on the basis of …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"44       Consequently, as is apparent from paragraph 91 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that it had to examine whether the grounds relied on by the Parliament in its letter of 8 January 2021 for not disclosing to TC the data requested by him were justified.","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"45       In the first place, the General Court examined the grounds relied on by the Parliament for refusing TC’s request concerning the disclosure of ‘all emails from 2015, 2016 and 2019’ and the correspondence exchanged by TC with the relevant services of the Parliament concerning A’s work.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"46       In paragraph 92 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that the Parliament had refused that request on the ground that, according to its policy, the retention of emails was limited to 90 days and, exceptionally, to one year. The Parliament added that the post-2019 emails could be disclosed, but that they were not relevant, as they did not relate to the period during which A was deemed to have worked for TC.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"47       In that regard, in paragraph 95 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that, from the beginning of 2016, the Parliament had become aware of a situation of conflict between TC and A as regards whether or not the latter was carrying out his activities in compliance with the rul …","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"48       In paragraphs 100 and 101 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court rejected the Parliament’s argument that it was for the Members to retain their emails, by creating private folders enabling their emails to be archived for an indefinite period, as the Parliament had invited Members t …","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"49       The General Court added, first, in paragraph 102 of the judgment under appeal, that the Parliament had failed to demonstrate that the aforementioned communications had been brought to TC’s attention. In particular, as regards the communication of 14 June 2014, the General Court noted that it was addressed to the ‘newcomers’, which did not include TC, since he had been a Member before that date.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"50       Second, in paragraph 103 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court found that the Parliament had not given any reasons explaining its refusal to send TC the correspondence exchanged by him with the relevant services of the Parliament.","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"51       Those considerations led the General Court to hold, in paragraph 104 of the judgment under appeal, that the grounds relied on by the Parliament for refusing TC’s request concerning the disclosure of ‘all emails from 2015, 2016 and 2019’ and the correspondence exchanged by him with the relevant services of the Parliament concerning A’s work were not well founded.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"52       In the second place, in paragraphs 105 to 124 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court analysed the grounds relied on by the Parliament to justify refusing the TC’s request for the disclosure of A’s personal file, including all documents relating to his recruitment and work, as well …","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"53       In paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court noted that the Parliament had justified its refusal to disclose that file, those documents, that information and those data on the ground that their transmission was contrary, first, to Regulation 2018/1725 and, second, to Art …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"54       First of all, in paragraphs 107 to 118 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court examined the ground based on Regulation 2018/1725. In that regard, it found, in paragraphs 110 and 111 of that judgment, that since they had to be used for his defence in the recovery procedure, the data …","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"55       It added, in paragraphs 114 to 116 of that judgment, that the right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right, but must be considered in relation to its function in society and weighed on that basis against other fundamental rights, in an approach which gives each of the r …","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"56       The General Court inferred from this, in paragraph 117 of the judgment under appeal, that it could not be accepted that the Parliament may invite TC to state his views effectively on the information contained, as the case may be, in A’s file, without giving him access to that information, a …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"57       Next, as regards the ground relating to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, the General Court stated, in paragraph 121 of the judgment under appeal, that, to the extent necessary for TC to exercise his right to be heard, the confidentiality of the documents in A’s personal file could not b …","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"58       Lastly, as regards the ground concerning the data relating to the use of A’s parliamentary access card, the General Court noted, in paragraph 123 of the judgment under appeal, that, for reasons similar to those set out in paragraphs 100 and 101 of that judgment, summarised in paragraph 48 o …","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"59       Consequently, in paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court stated that it could not be held that the grounds relied on by the Parliament for refusing TC’s request concerning ‘A’s “personal file” (all documents relating to his recruitment and work)’, including information …","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"60       In the third place, the General Court examined, in paragraphs 126 to 128 of the judgment under appeal, the grounds relied on by the Parliament for refusing TC’s request for disclosure of the file relating to the case giving rise to the judgment in L v Parliament. In that regard, the General …","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"61       As regards the ground relating to Article 9 of Regulation 2018/1725, the General Court referred to paragraphs 112 to 118 of the judgment under appeal, summarised in paragraphs 54 to 56 of the present judgment. In addition, the General Court stated that anonymity, such as that granted to A i …","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"62       By way of conclusion, the General Court held, in paragraphs 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal, that the grounds relied on by the Parliament in its letter of 8 January 2021 were unfounded or inadequate and that, in the absence of a proper justification by the Parliament for its refusa …","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"63       The Parliament claims that the Court of Justice should:","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"–        set aside the judgment under appeal;","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"–        give final judgment in the dispute before the General Court by granting the forms of order sought by it at first instance, and","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"–        order TC to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"64       TC contends that the Court of Justice should dismiss the appeal and order the Parliament to pay the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"The appeal","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"65       The Parliament relies on five grounds in support of its appeal. The first ground of appeal is based on disregard of the subject matter of the proceedings at first instance and the preparatory nature of the letter of 8 January 2021, infringement of the right to be heard and failure to have r …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"66       It is appropriate to examine, in the first place, the first part of the second ground of appeal in conjunction with the third and fifth grounds of appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"The first part of the second ground of appeal and the third and fifth grounds of appeal","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"Arguments of the parties","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"67       By the first part of its second ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes the grounds set out in paragraphs 2, 92 to 104, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court held that the Parliament had infringed TC’s right to be heard, by failing to retain his emails from …","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"68       The Parliament adds that the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraph 95 of the judgment under appeal, that since the Parliament had become aware at the beginning of 2016 of the existence of a situation of conflict between TC and A, it ought to have retained emails which could es …","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"69       By its third ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes paragraphs 105 to 124, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal. By the first part of that ground of appeal, it submits that the grounds concerning Article 9 of Regulation 2018/1725, set out in paragraphs 107 to 118 of that judgment, ar …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"70       By the second part of its third ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes the grounds set out in paragraphs 119 to 122, 124, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal, concerning the Parliament’s refusal to forward A’s personal file to TC. It submits that the first sentence of the last parag …","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"71       By the third part of its third ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes the grounds set out in paragraphs 123, 124, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court held that the right to be heard required the Parliament to take the necessary measures for the retention …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"72       By the fourth part of its third ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes the grounds set out in paragraphs 124, 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal to justify the General Court’s conclusion that the Parliament had infringed TC’s right to be heard by failing to provide him with informa …","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"73       By its fifth ground of appeal, the Parliament submits that paragraphs 90 and 91 of the judgment under appeal are vitiated by an error of law, in that the General Court held that TC could, solely on the basis of the right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, request the disclosure of information which appeared to be relevant in order to establish that the use of the parliamentary assistance expenses concerned was proper.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"74       According to the Parliament, that finding of the General Court creates a new right of access to the material held by the Parliament, beyond the right of access to the file provided for in Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter. In that regard, the General Court did not set out the reasons that wou …","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"75       TC responds to the first part of the second ground of appeal, relating to access to the emails of 2015 and 2016, stating that it is apparent from paragraphs 94 to 102 of the judgment under appeal that the General Court took account of the exceptional circumstances of the case, characterised …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"76       As regards the Parliament’s arguments based on Regulation 2018/1725, TC contends that the Parliament has not provided details of how it processes personal data and has not explained how longer email retention periods could be incompatible with the regime established by that regulation. In addition, the principle of data minimisation, laid down in Article 4(1)(c) of that regulation, concerns the volume of data processed and not the duration of their retention.","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"77       Furthermore, despite an invitation to that effect from the General Court, the Parliament did not place on the file at first instance any evidence establishing that TC had acquainted himself with the communications relating to the email retention policy, which, moreover, were drafted in languages not understood by TC. Consequently, the question whether or not, in 2014, he ought to have been regarded as a ‘newcomer’ Member is irrelevant.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"78       In response to the first part of the third ground of appeal, TC contends that the General Court clearly stated, in paragraphs 115 and 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the Parliament was required to comply with Regulations 2016/679 and 2018/1725 and to process personal data in such a w …","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"79       In response to the fifth ground of appeal, TC states that the Parliament did not dispute, either in the letter of 8 January 2021 or during the proceedings before the General Court, his right to obtain information, and that it merely invoked Article 9 of Regulation 2018/1725. It follows, according to TC, that, by that ground of appeal, the Parliament puts forward new arguments on which the General Court did not have the opportunity to rule.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"80       In any event, TC contends that there is no need to distinguish between ‘right to information’ and ‘right to be heard’. Those rights are, in essence, only components of the general right to good administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter. However, the Parliament considered that i …","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"81       TC states, moreover, that it is apparent from the case-law of the General Court that access to the administrative file cannot be made conditional on a request by the data subject. He contends that, in the present case, the Parliament significantly restricted his right of access to the file …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"82       As a preliminary point, in so far as TC contends that the Parliament puts forward, in the context of the first part of its second ground of appeal and also its fifth ground of appeal, new arguments not raised before the General Court, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case …","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"83       By the first part of its second ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes the grounds advanced in the judgment under appeal to justify the finding in paragraph 131 thereof that the Parliament had not correctly justified its refusal to disclose to TC, inter alia, his emails from 2015 and 2016.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"84       In addition, by its fifth ground of appeal, the Parliament disputes, in essence, the merits of the ground set out in paragraph 90 of the judgment under appeal, according to which, where a Member called upon to justify the work carried out by his or her parliamentary assistant requests the P …","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"85       In both cases, these are pleas and arguments arising from the judgment under appeal itself, which, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 82 above, are admissible.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"86       As to the substance, in the first place, so far as concerns the ground set out in paragraph 90 of the judgment under appeal, disputed by the Parliament in its fifth ground of appeal, it must be borne in mind that respect for the rights of the defence, enshrined in Article 41(2) of the Chart …","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"87       In particular, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the right to be heard, enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, must be observed in all proceedings which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting a person, and guarantees every person the opportunity to make …","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"88       As regards the right of access to the file, enshrined in Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, that right means that the person concerned must be provided with the opportunity to examine all the documents in the investigation that might be relevant for his or her defence. Those documents compris …","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"89       It is thus apparent from Article 41(2) of the Charter and from the case-law cited in paragraphs 86 to 88 above that, before making his or her observations in exercise of his or her right to be heard enshrined in Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter, the person concerned may, in exercise of the r …","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"90       On the other hand, the right to be heard must be distinguished from the right to request and obtain access to any document which, although not in that file, is in the possession of the institution concerned and is regarded by the person concerned as potentially relevant for his or her defence. That is the reason for which Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter provides for a specific right guaranteeing the person concerned access to his or her file.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"91       The particular features of the situation of a Member called upon to justify the parliamentary assistance expenses incurred in his or her regard by the Parliament cannot justify a different interpretation of his or her rights of defence, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"92       As the General Court recalled in paragraph 89 of the judgment under appeal, it is clear from Article 33(1) and (2) of the Implementing Measures that it is for Members who request the Parliament to bear financial responsibility for the costs of the assistance from personal staff to prove tha …","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"93       However, it cannot be excluded that the information necessary to provide that proof is in the possession not of the Member concerned, but of the Parliament. In such a case, it is possible that that Member will not be able to obtain such information solely on the basis of his or her right to obtain, under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, access to his or her file which is in the Parliament’s possession.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"94       Indeed, as the Advocate General stated, in essence, in point 67 of her Opinion, inasmuch as it will be for the Member in question to provide that proof, the file compiled by the Parliament will contain, at least initially, only the evidence at the origin of the request addressed to that Member, in particular a statement of the parliamentary assistance expenses incurred by the Parliament in respect of him or her.","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"95       The fact remains, however, that each Member knows the work that his or her parliamentary assistant carries out and, therefore, is in a position to describe it, even if he or she does not have all the proof necessary to substantiate his or her assertions.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"96       Accordingly, as the Advocate General also observed in point 69 of her Opinion, a Member faced with a request to justify the parliamentary assistance expenses incurred in respect of him or her and who does not have all the evidence necessary for that purpose, which could be in the Parliament …","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"97       It must, however, be pointed out, as the Advocate General observed in point 70 of her Opinion, that such a reference must indicate with sufficient precision both the evidence concerned and the facts, relating to the genuineness of the work of the assistant concerned and the link between tha …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"98       If the Parliament, after examining the evidence at issue, considers that it does not prove the genuineness of the work carried out by the parliamentary assistant of the Member concerned or the link between that work and the exercise of that member’s mandate, it will then be for the Parliame …","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"99       Consequently, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 86 to 98 above, it must be held that paragraph 90 of the judgment under appeal is vitiated by an error of law, in that the General Court held in that paragraph that, unless the Parliament relies on grounds which may be r …","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"100     It follows that the fifth ground of appeal must be upheld.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"101     In the second place, as regards the first part of the second ground of appeal and the third and fourth parts of the third ground of appeal – by which the Parliament disputes the grounds of the judgment under appeal relating to the infringement of TC’s rights of defence on account of the fact …","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"102     That consideration does not mean that the failure to record certain information or to retain certain evidence cannot have an influence on the outcome of the procedure concerned. However, that issue does not concern the right of access to the file, enshrined in Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter. It is relevant to the assessment of the available evidence and of the validity, in fact, of the act adopted by the institution concerned at the end of the procedure in question.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"103     In particular, in a case where, as here, it is for the person concerned – in this case a Member or a former Member of the Parliament – to demonstrate the genuineness of certain facts, failing which the institution concerned – in this case the Parliament – is entitled to adopt a decision in a …","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"104     Conversely, it could be considered that the person concerned has not discharged that burden if the evidence which he or she has produced is insufficient and he or she has not submitted evidence which it was for him or her to retain and produce on request.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"105     In the present case, it is apparent from paragraphs 85, 86, 92 and 96 of the judgment under appeal that, on 8 June 2020, the date on which the recovery procedure against TC was initiated, his emails from 2015 and 2016 had already been deleted from the Parliament’s system, in accordance with that institution’s email retention policy, according to which emails were in principle deleted after 90 days or, exceptionally, after one year.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"106     Furthermore, it is apparent from paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal that the data relating to the use of parliamentary access cards were retained for a maximum period of four months and that the interventions of the parliamentary security officers were not officially recorded.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"107     In paragraphs 130 and 131 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the grounds relied on by the Parliament in the letter of 8 January 2021 to justify the non-disclosure to TC, inter alia, of his emails from 2015 and 2016, the data relating to the use of A’s parliamentary acc …","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"108     However, first, it is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraphs 101 to 104 of the present judgment that, by holding in essence that in order to safeguard TC’s rights of defence, the Parliament ought to have given TC access to information which had never existed or which no longe …","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"109     Second, without it being necessary to determine whether the retention by the Parliament of Members’ emails for an indefinite period or longer than the 90 days provided for by its email retention policy in force at the time of the facts of the present case would be liable, as the Parliament m …","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"110     As it is, the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraph 95 of the judgment under appeal, that since, from the beginning of 2016, the Parliament became aware of a ‘a situation of conflict between [TC] and [A] as regards whether or not [A] was carrying out his activities for [TC] in …","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"111     Indeed, it is apparent from paragraphs 86, 92 and 96 to 98 of the judgment under appeal that the Parliament had undertaken to comply with an email retention policy according to which, in principle, beyond a retention period of 90 days, emails would automatically be deleted unless the persons …","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"112     That is all the more so since, in order to be able to retain emails likely to be relevant to the situation of conflict between TC and A, the Parliament would have had to screen their emails, which would have constituted a major and unjustified interference in the private spheres of that memb …","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"113     Furthermore, for the purposes of adjudication on any proceedings arising from that situation of conflict, it was not necessary for the Parliament to retain, as a preventive measure and on its own initiative, the emails exchanged between TC and A. The Parliament could rely, in that regard, on the statements of the persons concerned and on the evidence produced by them, including any emails which either of them had retained and produced.","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"114     In that context, it must be borne in mind, as stated in paragraph 92 above, that the burden of proving the costs of the assistance from personal staff lies with the Members.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"115     Third, for reasons similar to those set out in paragraphs 112 to 114 above, it must be held that, contrary to what the General Court in essence found, the Parliament was also not required to retain the data relating to the use of A’s parliamentary access card beyond their usual retention period or to maintain a register of interventions by its security officers that were requested in respect of A.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"116     It follows from the considerations set out in paragraphs 101 to 115 above that the first part of the second ground of appeal and the third and fourth parts of the third ground of appeal must also be upheld.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"117     In the third place, as regards the grounds set out in paragraphs 109 to 118 of the judgment under appeal concerning the Parliament’s reliance, in the letter of 8 January 2021, on Regulation 2018/1725 – grounds which the Parliament disputes by the first part of its third ground of appeal – th …","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"118     By contrast, as the Advocate General observed in points 97 and 98 of her Opinion, the conduct of a procedure for the recovery of parliamentary assistance expenses unduly incurred by the Parliament in respect of a Member, while respecting that member’s rights of the defence, must be regarded as serving ‘a specific purpose in the public interest’, within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"119     Accordingly, if personal data are contained in the file for the recovery procedure concerned, that regulation does not preclude the Parliament, in order to comply with its obligation under Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, from granting the Member concerned access to those data, in compliance …","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"120     It follows that the inconsistency in the grounds of the judgment under appeal alleged by the Parliament arises from an error of law, inasmuch as the General Court wrongly held, in paragraph 111 of that judgment, that the transmission of such data did not serve a ‘specific purpose in the public interest’ within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"121     Nevertheless, although the General Court held, in paragraphs 110 and 111 of the judgment under appeal, that Article 9(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 cannot justify the transmission of personal data to a Member faced with a request to justify the parliamentary assistance expenses incurred in resp …","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"122     In so doing, the General Court ultimately accepted that the Parliament was required to grant TC access to the personal data of that parliamentary assistant, in compliance with conditions which are substantially the same as those laid down in Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation 2018/1725.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"123     Consequently, the first part of the third ground of appeal cannot, in any event, lead to the setting aside of the judgment under appeal and must be rejected as ineffective.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"124     In the fourth and last place, as regards A’s personal file, as the Parliament submits in the context of the second part of its third ground of appeal, it is apparent from the last paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, applicable to accredited parliamentary assistants by virtue of …","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"125     In the present case, it is apparent from the last indent of paragraph 87 of the judgment under appeal that TC had not requested the Parliament to be able to consult A’s personal file in its offices or on a secure electronic medium, but rather to be forwarded it. However, such forwarding would have been contrary to Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"126     It follows that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held, in essence, in paragraphs 121 and 122 of the judgment under appeal, that the Parliament could not validly rely on Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in order to refuse TC’s request, on the ground that the confidentiality o …","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"127     Consequently, the second part of the third ground of appeal must be upheld.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"128     It follows from all the foregoing that the appeal must be upheld and points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal set aside.","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"129     In those circumstances, there is no need to examine the first and fourth grounds of appeal, or the second and third parts of the second ground of appeal, since they seek to challenge grounds of the judgment under appeal which are based on a premiss which has been established, during the examination of the fifth ground of appeal, to be vitiated by an error of law.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"130     By contrast, point 1 of the operative part, by which the General Court held that the action for annulment had become devoid of purpose and that there was no need to adjudicate on the legality of the decision at issue and of the debit note, in so far as they concerned the remuneration, social …","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"The action before the General Court","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"131     In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, if the decision of the General Court is set aside, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the General Court for judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"132     In the present case, the state of the proceedings permits final judgment to be given on the first and second pleas in the action.","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"133     The first plea in law formally alleges infringement of the reasonable time principle, laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter. The arguments relied on by TC in support of that plea in law were summarised in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the judgment under appeal and were rejected by the General …","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"134     However, in the context of that first plea, TC also put forward arguments relating to the Parliament’s refusal, in the letter of 8 January 2021, to send him the information he had requested. Those arguments, summarised in paragraphs 70 and 71 of the judgment under appeal, were examined by th …","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"135     TC submits that the Parliament infringed his right to be heard and his right of access to the file, enshrined in Article 41(2) of the Charter, on the ground that it referred, in the decision at issue, to the findings of the judgment in L v Parliament (T‑59/17, EU:T:2019:140), without disclos …","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"136     However, it is apparent from the grounds set out in paragraphs 86 to 116 and 124 to 126 of the present judgment that the Parliament’s refusal, in the letter of 8 January 2021, to send TC the evidence which he had requested, cannot be regarded as constituting an infringement of his rights of defence and, in particular, of his right to be heard.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"137     First, in his requests of 4 August and 22 September 2020, referred to in paragraphs 24 and 26 of the present judgment respectively, TC had merely requested the disclosure of a whole series of items of evidence referred to generally, without identifying the facts to be proven or the evidence …","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"138     Second, some of the evidence requested, namely TC’s emails from 2015 and 2016, the data relating to the use of A’s parliamentary access card and the information relating to the number of times Parliament’s protection was requested in respect of A had never existed or, in any event, did not exist on the date on which the procedure at issue was initiated and, therefore, when TC made his request.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"139     Third, the disclosure to TC of A’s personal file was prohibited, in accordance with Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"140     As regards TC’s argument based on the Parliament’s alleged reference, in the decision at issue, to the findings in the judgment in L v Parliament , it is sufficient to recall that, as is apparent from paragraph 25 of the present judgment, the Parliament sent TC a copy of the judgment in L v Parliament , with the result that it cannot be validly criticised for having taken into consideration, in the decision at issue, material to which TC did not have access.","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"141     Consequently, the first and second pleas in law in the action before the General Court must be rejected.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"142     As to the remainder, the state of the proceedings does not permit final judgment to be given, since the third to fifth pleas in law relied on by TC in support of his action were not examined by the General Court.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"143     Consequently, the case must be referred back to the General Court for a ruling on those pleas.","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"144     Since the case has been referred back to the General Court, the costs relating to the present appeal must be reserved.","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"1.       Sets aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 June 2023, TC v Parliament (T ‑ 309/21, EU:T:2023:315);","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"2.       Dismisses the first and second pleas in law in the action before the General Court of the European Union;","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"3.       Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the third to fifth pleas in law;","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"4.       Reserves the costs.","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Lithuanian.","paragraph_id":"para_242"}],"word_count":13342,"cites":["C-529/23","T-309/21","T-59/17","C-4/17","C-584/10","C-593/10","C-595/10","C-831/18","C-110/10","C-430/23","C-833/19"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"93021a54d8895caf6259f8dbfdd90d952c990fe9d0d327a0a358c7dca36d8736","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0529","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T20:16:39.225+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-529-23-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-529-23-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-529-23-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-529-23-p","verification":{"stored_sha256":"93021a54d8895caf6259f8dbfdd90d952c990fe9d0d327a0a358c7dca36d8736","recomputed_sha256":"93021a54d8895caf6259f8dbfdd90d952c990fe9d0d327a0a358c7dca36d8736","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-15T07:37:59.720Z"}},"hash":"sha256:afeb3717f5c81f28f5eebbac1864ed17f03a4c12ec40a2a4d8ed697eb7a9d7ec","version":"legal-2026-10-15","expires":"2026-10-16T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-15+legal-2026-10-15+2026-10-15T07:24:49","content_hash":"sha256:afeb3717f5c81f28f5eebbac1864ed17f03a4c12ec40a2a4d8ed697eb7a9d7ec","revalidate_after":"2026-10-15T08:38:00.315Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-529-23-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-529-23-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-529-23-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-529-23-p"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-529-23-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-8af6717b2044615b365347fb25967437","response_hash":"sha256:afeb3717f5c81f28f5eebbac1864ed17f03a4c12ec40a2a4d8ed697eb7a9d7ec"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:16:41.793Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-529-23-p&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":20575}}