Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013TN0336

    Case T-336/13: Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament

    OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 36–37 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 23–23 (HR)

    31.8.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 252/36

    Action brought on 24 June 2013 — Borghezio v Parliament

    (Case T-336/13)

    2013/C 252/61

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Mario Borghezio (Turin, Italy) (represented by: H. Laquay, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the General Court should:

    —

    declare the application admissible and founded and, consequently, annul the decision of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as as a ‘non-attached’ member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date;

    —

    determine the costs in accordance with the law.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of his action, the applicant relies — in addition to the fact that the decision declaring him to be a non-attached member produces legal effects since it prevents him from carry out his parliamentary mandate in the same conditions as the members of Parliament who are affiliated to a political group — on two pleas in law relating to the substance of the case. The applicant submits that the Parliament is required to assess whether there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group or of a general principle of law.

    1.

    By his first ground of appeal, the applicant submits that there has been a serious and manifest infringement of the statutes of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’, since the decision to exclude the applicant from the group was taken prior to the group’s next meeting, contrary to what is stated in its statutes.

    2.

    By his second plea in law, he alleges an infringement of his rights of defence, since he was not able to put forward his pleas in his defence at a meeting of the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’.
    Top