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 62014TN0453

Case T-453/14: Action brought on 13 June 2014  — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

OJ C 303, 8.9.2014, 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)

8.9.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/42

Action brought on 13 June 2014 — Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság v European Parliament

(Case T-453/14)

2014/C 303/50

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság (Pannonhalma, Hungary) (represented by: D. Sobor, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

—

Annul decision MS/sd(IPOL-COM-PETI D (2014) 14486) of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 to file without further action the petition presented in the Lónyay Mansion in Rusovce (Slovakia) case;

—

Order the European Parliament to examine the petition and take all the measures required by law;

—

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the Petitions Committee infringed procedural rules in that no reasons were stated for the contested decision.

In that regard, the applicant points out that, pursuant to Rule [215](8) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, petitions declared inadmissible by the committee are to be filed and the petitioner informed of the decision and the reasons for it. The applicant also states that, in breach of that Rule, the defendant gave no reasons for its view that the subject matter of the petition had no connection with the European Union's fields of activity. The applicant also cites the judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer v Parliament [2011] ECR II-279.

Top