This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0677
Case T-677/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
Case T-677/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
Case T-677/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
OJ C 27, 25.1.2016, p. 74–75
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
25.1.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 27/74 |
Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission
(Case T-677/15)
(2016/C 027/93)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)
Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
As regards the substance of the case: uphold the present action and, consequently, annul the contested decision on the ground that it is unlawful; |
— |
In the alternative: refer the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought; |
— |
Order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
— |
Order that all rights deriving from the law and reasonableness should be reserved, including the right to seek an order requiring that the defendant refund, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, any sums which may have been paid in the interim period, in accordance with the contested order. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against letter No 315070 of 21 September 2015 of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament — Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements enclosing a debit note addressed to the applicant for EUR 83 764,00, and against letter No 312998 of 27 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, in English, relating to the reasons for debit note No 315070 of 21 September 2015; and against any other previous, connected and subsequent decisions relating to the abovementioned decisions.
The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of his action.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the substantive rule laid down in Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, infringement of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, and the limitation period in respect of the European Union’s claim.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 1, 4(6), 6(5) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and recital 10 in the preamble thereto, infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by OLAF; lack of competence of OLAF; infringement of the principle of proportionality and reasonableness and inadequate investigation and careful consideration.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 55 TEU, Article 20 TFEU and Article 24(4) TFEU and infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 7(1) of Decision 2005/684/EC of the European Parliament (adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament).
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 62 and 68 of the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008; infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 14(2) of the Rules on Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament (PEAM); non-existence of the decision and complete failure to give reasons.
|