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 62016TN0770

    Case T-770/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

    OJ C 6, 9.1.2017, p. 50–50 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.1.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 6/50

    Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

    (Case T-770/16)

    (2017/C 006/62)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    —

    Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

    In consequence:

    —

    Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 August 2016;

    —

    Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 5 July 2016 imposing the same sanctions;

    —

    Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions; in the alternative award the applicant the sum of EUR 13 306;

    —

    In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, infringement of the freedom of speech and of expression of EU citizens, with the particular circumstance that the comments referred to in the decision were made by an MEP in the exercise of his duties and inside the EU institutions, and infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and/or infringement of the general principle of impartial treatment.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of the defence and Article 166(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given for acts of the EU institutions and infringement of the principles of proportionality and ne bis in idem.
    Top