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 62011TN0168

Case T-168/11: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament

IO C 250, 18.8.2012, p. 15–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.8.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/15

Action brought on 25 April 2012 — AQ v European Parliament

(Case T-168/11)

2012/C 250/29

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: AQ (Żary, Poland) (represented by: K. Rosiak, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant’s appointed representative requests the Court to:

—

declare that the applicant’s action is inadmissible and that there is no need to examine it; and to

—

declare that there is no basis on which the applicant can receive compensation in view of the fact that no actual and certain harm was caused by any act or omission of the European Parliament.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his submissions, the applicant’s appointed representative relies on three pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law:

—

Unless it is established that the European Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2008 contains a decision of the Petitions Committee relating to an earlier petition of the applicant, the content of which corresponds in full to the content of that petition, it may be assumed that there was, in the present case, satisfaction of the condition relating to breach by the European Parliament of essential procedural requirements (Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament) and that the European Parliament failed to issue an act to the applicant in response to the petition addressed to it;

2.

Second plea in law:

—

In view, however, of the fact that the petition does not concern matters coming within the field of activity of the European Union, the applicant does not have any legal interest in bringing the action;

3.

Third plea in law:

—

furthermore, in view of the fact that the periods for effectively bringing an action under both Article 230 EC (Article 263 TFEU) and Article 232 EC (Article 265 TFEU) had already expired at the time when the applicant applied for legal aid, the action is inadmissible.
Top