EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0447
Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament
Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament
Case C-447/13 P: Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament
IO C 304, 19.10.2013, p. 7–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.10.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 304/7 |
Appeal brought on 6 August 2013 by Riccardo Nencini against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2013 in Case T-431/10, Nencini v European Parliament
(Case C-447/13 P)
2013/C 304/13
Language of the procedure: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)
Other party to the procedure: European Parliament
Form of order sought
|
— |
Set aside — subject, where necessary, to verification of the invalidity/illegality of Article 85b of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (1) and Article 73a of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (2) — the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2013 in Joined Cases T-431/10 and T-560/10 Nencini v European Parliament and, by varying that judgment to the effect that the pleas in law raised before the General Court are upheld, declare that the measures contested at first instance are illegal; |
|
— |
In the alternative, in the unlikely event that the order directing Mr Nencini to repay the contested amount is confirmed, recalculate — by setting aside and varying the judgment under appeal — that amount in an equitable manner or refer the documents back to the General Secretariat of the European Parliament for an equitable recalculation of the contested figure; |
|
— |
Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it concerns costs and, consequently, vary it in such a way as to order the Parliament to pay the costs in Case T-431/10, ordering it also to pay the costs in Case T-560/10 or in some way arranging compensation for those costs; |
|
— |
In any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present appeal. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Mr Nencini first alleges infringement of the rules governing time-bars and breach of the principles of legal certainty, effectiveness and reasonableness. The General Court rejected Mr Nencini’s claims, finding that time for the purposes of initiating recovery had started to run with notification of the recovery decision and the debit note, that is to say, 11 years after Mr Nencini had ceased to be a Member of the European Parliament.
Secondly, Mr Nencini claims that the General Court erred in law in relation to the pleas alleging breach of the adversarial principle and the principle of effective judicial protection, as some of the factors on which the decision was based were different from those which had previously been the subject of dispute.
Thirdly, Mr Nencini alleges misapplication of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members (‘the PEAM rules’), both as regards the contested amounts by way of reimbursement of travel expenses and as regards the contested amounts by way of secretarial allowance. Specifically, Mr Nencini argues that there was an error of interpretation as regards the concept of ‘domicile’, which cannot be equated with the concept of formal ‘residence’; he also argues that, in several respects, there had been no unlawful conduct and that it was contradictory to regard failure to indicate the names of all the beneficiaries of the secretarial allowance merely as a formal irregularity, but nonetheless to maintain that, in the light of the confusing rules which existed at the time, there was no way of making good that irregularity.
Fourthly, Mr Nencini alleges breach of the principle of proportionality in the calculation of the amount to be recovered. He argues that demanding payment of the entire sum is perverse.
Lastly, Mr Nencini complains that there has been error in calculating the costs that he owes in relation to the proceedings. The costs incurred for contesting the first decision — a decision which was subsequently withdrawn — arose because of improper conduct on the part of the other party, which had acknowledged this, however, by arranging — after notice of the first action had been served — for the decision to be replaced with a decision in Italian.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).