# C_2010317EN.01004001.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/40

---

Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Nencini v Parliament

(Case T-431/10)

()

2010/C 317/72

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Riccardo Nencini (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Bertini, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, on the grounds set out in the application, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini, Communication No 312331 of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances of 4 August 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, on the grounds set out in the application, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 July 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini, Communication No 312331 of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances of 4 August 2010, addressed to Mr Riccardo Nencini and, in so far as necessary, any other related and/or prior acts challenged in these proceedings.

| — | In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to the Secretary-General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum at issue. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the matter back to the Secretary-General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum at issue.

| — | In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament who served during the period 1994 — 1999, relies on the following grounds:

| — | Infringement of the language regime of the European Community and consequent infringement of the rights of due process and the principle of effective protection, in so far as the two contested measures should have been written in Italian, the language of the Member State of which the applicant is a national. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the language regime of the European Community and consequent infringement of the rights of due process and the principle of effective protection, in so far as the two contested measures should have been written in Italian, the language of the Member State of which the applicant is a national.

| — | The claim for the sum purportedly owing is inadmissible, since the right to claim that sum is time-barred. |
| --- | --- |

—

The claim for the sum purportedly owing is inadmissible, since the right to claim that sum is time-barred.

| — | Infringement of the principle that both parties must be heard and the principle of effective protection. It is submitted in this connection that, in the case of the applicant, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament adopted the final decision on the basis of facts and legal grounds which are, in part, different from those previously relied on and made known to the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the principle that both parties must be heard and the principle of effective protection. It is submitted in this connection that, in the case of the applicant, the Secretary-General of the European Parliament adopted the final decision on the basis of facts and legal grounds which are, in part, different from those previously relied on and made known to the applicant.

| — | Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to travel allowances, by failing to take account of the fact that, during the period in which the applicant served as an MEP, his place of residence was Rome. In that city, which is capital of Italy and the centre of national political life, Mr Nencini was continually engaged in political activities as the national leader of his political party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to travel allowances, by failing to take account of the fact that, during the period in which the applicant served as an MEP, his place of residence was Rome. In that city, which is capital of Italy and the centre of national political life, Mr Nencini was continually engaged in political activities as the national leader of his political party.

| — | Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to the allowance for secretarial assistance. The applicant states he transferred to the persons employed as his personal secretaries all the allowances received for that purpose and did not retain any sum for himself. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the rules governing parliamentary allowances for Members of the European Parliament, with reference to the allowance for secretarial assistance. The applicant states he transferred to the persons employed as his personal secretaries all the allowances received for that purpose and did not retain any sum for himself.

| — | Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the general principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

---