This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019TN0102
Case T-102/19: Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament
Case T-102/19: Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament
Case T-102/19: Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament
OJ C 139, 15.4.2019, p. 83–84
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.4.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 139/83 |
Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament
(Case T-102/19)
(2019/C 139/84)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicants: Salvador Garriga Polledo (Madrid, Spain) and 45 other applicants (represented by: A. Schmitt and A. Waisse, lawyers)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— |
where necessary, by way of measures of organisation of procedure or measures of inquiry in the case, order the European Parliament to disclose the opinions given by the European Parliament Legal Service on 16 July 2018 and 3 December 2018, although perhaps not on those exact dates, but in any event before the adoption of the decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p.8); |
— |
annul the abovementioned decision taken by the Bureau of the Parliament on 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as it amends Article 76 of the IMS (recitals 5 and 6, Article 1(7)) and Article 2 in so far as it concerns Article 76 of the IMS of the abovementioned decision), or, alternatively, if those sections were not considered to be severable from the remainder of the contested measure, to annul the abovementioned measure in its entirety; |
— |
order the Parliament to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging the Bureau’s lack of competence ratione materiae
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.
|
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights and future entitlements and of the principle of legitimate expectations.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
|
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the absence of transitional measures.
|