This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CO0573
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022.
Marie-Christine Arnautu v European Parliament.
Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Institutional law – Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament – Article 33(1) and (2) – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery of undue payments – Plea of illegality – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Assessment of evidence – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
Case C-573/21 P.
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022.
Marie-Christine Arnautu v European Parliament.
Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Institutional law – Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament – Article 33(1) and (2) – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery of undue payments – Plea of illegality – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Assessment of evidence – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.
Case C-573/21 P.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2022:448
Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 2 June 2022 –
Arnautu v Parliament
(Case C‑573/21 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Institutional law – Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament – Article 33(1) and (2) – Parliamentary assistance allowance – Recovery of undue payments – Plea of illegality – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Assessment of evidence – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
|
1. |
EU law – Principles – Legal certainty – EU rules – Requirements of clarity and precision (see para. 33) |
|
2. |
EU law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see paras 34, 35) |
|
3. |
Court of Justice – Judgments – Interpretation of the rules of law – Application to legal relationships arising and established before delivery of the decision (see paras 44, 45) |
|
4. |
EU law – Principles – Legal certainty – EU rules – Requirements of clarity and foreseeability – Use of undetermined legal concepts requiring interpretation and application by the administration – Whether permissible (see para. 63) |
|
5. |
EU law – Interpretation – Provision containing no express reference to the law of Member States – Independent and uniform interpretation (see paras 65, 66) |
|
6. |
Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 93, 94) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |
|
2. |
Ms Marie-Christine Arnautu shall bear her own costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 24, 17.1.2022.