Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62021TN0309

Case T-309/21: Action brought on 24 May 2021 — TC v Parliament

OJ C 320, 9.8.2021, p. 42–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.8.2021   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/42

Action brought on 24 May 2021 — TC v Parliament

(Case T-309/21)

(2021/C 320/48)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: TC, represented by D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 March 2021;

—

cancel debit note No 7010000523 issued by the European Parliament on 31 March 2021;

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament was, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly late in adopting its decision by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time in the administrative procedures provided for in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed as a result of the late initiation of recovery proceedings brought against him, since the duration of those proceedings deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made and to adduce evidence.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, upon which the debit note was based, as a legal measure affecting the applicant, was adopted in breach of the principles of impartial and fair procedure, equality of arms and the applicant’s rights of defence:

—

The Parliament infringed the obligation to give reasons and the applicant’s right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) and (c) of the Charter by basing the contested decision on findings made by the General Court in a case in which the applicant was not involved and on which he did not have an opportunity to be heard;

—

The Parliament did not provide the applicant with the evidence on which it indirectly based the contested decision, nor did it provide the applicant with other information necessary to enable him properly to exercise his right to be heard (to submit observations), in breach of Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament made an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess the evidence adduced by the applicant which confirmed that the matters referred to by the assistant before the General Court on which the Parliament relies, and on the basis of which recovery proceedings have been initiated, are incorrect (confirm that the investigation was initiated without justification) and breach the obligation to give reasons set out in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Parliament infringed the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and in Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, in so far as the amount to be repaid was set at EUR 78 838,21. The sum required to be repaid has not been substantiated in full, and for that reason the contested decision assumes that the Parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that information of the Parliament which is publicly available confirms that the Parliamentary assistant carried out his functions until no later than 15 December 2015, which indicates that it was unreasonable to initiate the procedure for recovery of the funds, with the result that the decision must be annulled.
Top