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 62016TN0302

    Case T-302/16: Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

    IO C 279, 1.8.2016, p. 40–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    10/06/2016
    Date lodged:
    10/06/2016
    Author:
    Cúirt Ghinearálta
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Fraincis
    Type of procedure:
    Caingean le haghaidh neamhniú

    1.8.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 279/40

    Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

    (Case T-302/16)

    (2016/C 279/55)

    Language of the case: French

    Parties

    Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

    Defendant: European Parliament

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    in limine litis,

    —

    annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;

    —

    annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;

    in substance,

    —

    withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    1.

    First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.

    2.

    Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.

    3.

    Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.

    4.

    Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.
    Top