Action brought on 2 November 2015 — LL v Parliament

(Case T-615/15)

(2016/C 027/84)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: LL (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: J. Petrulionis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The correctness of the payment and the validity and lawfulness of its recovery

The applicant submits that, in Decision D(2014) 15503, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament decided in an entirely unfounded and unlawful manner that the amount of EUR 37 728 had been unduly paid to the applicant and, in a manner which was unfounded and unlawful under Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament and Article 80 of the Rules of Application for the Financial Regulation, instructed the Accounting Officer of the European Parliament to recover from the applicant the payment of EUR 37 728 and, in accordance with the procedure laid down, to notify the applicant of that matter by Debit Note No 2014-575.

According to the applicant, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, when adopting the decision, took into account only two elements: the OLAF report and the fact that the applicant had not adduced evidence that the payment was used for its intended purpose. However, the applicant claims, no information was collected which confirms that he used the payment received for purposes other than that for which it was intended, in breach of Article 14 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament.

The limitation period and the application of the principles of a reasonable period, legal security and the protection of legitimate expectations

The applicant claims that, in Decision D(2014) 15503 of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament and in Debit Note No 2014-575, the limitation period provided for in Article 81 of the Financial Regulation and in Article 93 of the Rules of Application for the Financial Regulation was not respected, and that the requirements of the principles of a reasonable period, legal security and the protection of legitimate expectations were not complied with.

According to the applicant, the relevant EU institutions delayed, in an unfounded and unfair manner and for an unreasonably long time, in exercising their powers and taking the relevant decisions. In this way, the applicant’s rights were infringed, including the right of defence and the proper implementation of that right, since, owing to the long period between the events under investigation and the taking of the relevant decisions, the applicant was objectively deprived of the opportunity effectively to defend himself against the accusations made, to present evidence and to take all other necessary steps to ensure that the matter under examination would be resolved equitably.