# C_2016027EN.01007401.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/74

---

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Panzeri v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-677/15)

(2016/C 027/93)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pier Antonio Panzeri (Calusco d’Adda, Italy) (represented by: C. Cerami, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission

Defendants:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | As regards the substance of the case: uphold the present action and, consequently, annul the contested decision on the ground that it is unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the substance of the case: uphold the present action and, consequently, annul the contested decision on the ground that it is unlawful;

| — | In the alternative: refer the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative: refer the applications to the Secretary General of the European Parliament for a fair reassessment of the sum in respect of which recovery is sought;

| — | Order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

| — | Order that all rights deriving from the law and reasonableness should be reserved, including the right to seek an order requiring that the defendant refund, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, any sums which may have been paid in the interim period, in accordance with the contested order. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order that all rights deriving from the law and reasonableness should be reserved, including the right to seek an order requiring that the defendant refund, together with interest and adjustment for inflation, any sums which may have been paid in the interim period, in accordance with the contested order.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against letter No 315070 of 21 September 2015 of the Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament — Directorate for Members’ Financial and Social Entitlements enclosing a debit note addressed to the applicant for EUR 83 764,00, and against letter No 312998 of 27 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, in English, relating to the reasons for debit note No 315070 of 21 September 2015; and against any other previous, connected and subsequent decisions relating to the abovementioned decisions.

The applicant relies on four pleas in law in support of his action.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the substantive rule laid down in Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, infringement of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, and the limitation period in respect of the European Union’s claim.






  — | In that regard, the applicant considers that the claim amounting to EUR 83 764,34 sought by the Parliament under an administrative procedure against Mr Panzeri is time-barred pursuant to Article 81(1) of Regulation No 966/2012. This is because the facts which served as the basis for the European Union's claim refer solely to the five year period 2004-2009, while the payment order adopted by the directorate was issued only on 21 September 2015 and is accordingly wholly out of time. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the substantive rule laid down in Article 81(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, infringement of the ‘reasonable time’ principle, and the limitation period in respect of the European Union’s claim.

—

In that regard, the applicant considers that the claim amounting to EUR 83 764,34 sought by the Parliament under an administrative procedure against Mr Panzeri is time-barred pursuant to Article 81(1) of Regulation No 966/2012. This is because the facts which served as the basis for the European Union's claim refer solely to the five year period 2004-2009, while the payment order adopted by the directorate was issued only on 21 September 2015 and is accordingly wholly out of time.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 1, 4(6), 6(5) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and recital 10 in the preamble thereto, infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by OLAF; lack of competence of OLAF; infringement of the principle of proportionality and reasonableness and inadequate investigation and careful consideration.






  — | In that regard, the applicant considers that the procedure carried out by OLAF is vitatied on a number of grounds, given that the inter-partes procedure was not properly conducted in relation to Mr Panzeri, there was no final investigation report and the whole OLAF investigation procedure took place in clear breach of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 1073/1999 since it was opened on 23 November 2009 and only concluded (presumably) in July 2012. Furthermore, OLAF could not have been competent, given the trivial nature of the behaviour attributed to the applicant, with the result that the principle of proportionality has been breached. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 1, 4(6), 6(5) and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and recital 10 in the preamble thereto, infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 4 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by OLAF; lack of competence of OLAF; infringement of the principle of proportionality and reasonableness and inadequate investigation and careful consideration.

—

In that regard, the applicant considers that the procedure carried out by OLAF is vitatied on a number of grounds, given that the inter-partes procedure was not properly conducted in relation to Mr Panzeri, there was no final investigation report and the whole OLAF investigation procedure took place in clear breach of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 1073/1999 since it was opened on 23 November 2009 and only concluded (presumably) in July 2012. Furthermore, OLAF could not have been competent, given the trivial nature of the behaviour attributed to the applicant, with the result that the principle of proportionality has been breached.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 55 TEU, Article 20 TFEU and Article 24(4) TFEU and infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 7(1) of Decision 2005/684/EC of the European Parliament (adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament).






  — | The applicant submits that letter No 312998 of 27 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, which contains the only claims actually made against the applicant, was written in English. This is a breach of several provisions of the European Treaties and the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which are intended to ensure that every citizen of the European Union, including the Members of the European Parliament, has the right to communicate, orally or in writing, with all the institutions of the European Union in his own mother tongue. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 55 TEU, Article 20 TFEU and Article 24(4) TFEU and infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 7(1) of Decision 2005/684/EC of the European Parliament (adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament).

—

The applicant submits that letter No 312998 of 27 July 2012 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament, which contains the only claims actually made against the applicant, was written in English. This is a breach of several provisions of the European Treaties and the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which are intended to ensure that every citizen of the European Union, including the Members of the European Parliament, has the right to communicate, orally or in writing, with all the institutions of the European Union in his own mother tongue.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 62 and 68 of the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008; infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 14(2) of the Rules on Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament (PEAM); non-existence of the decision and complete failure to give reasons.






  — | In that regard, it should be noted in that the Secretary-General failed to issue (or at least to communicate to Mr Panzeri) the final decision on the basis of which the payment order contested in the present case was issued. This clearly points to a complete failure to give reasons or even to the fact that there was no final decision. The prerequisites for the application of Article 14(2) of the PEAM rules are not met. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Articles 62 and 68 of the Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008; infringement of the essential procedural requirements laid down in Article 14(2) of the Rules on Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members of the European Parliament (PEAM); non-existence of the decision and complete failure to give reasons.

—

In that regard, it should be noted in that the Secretary-General failed to issue (or at least to communicate to Mr Panzeri) the final decision on the basis of which the payment order contested in the present case was issued. This clearly points to a complete failure to give reasons or even to the fact that there was no final decision. The prerequisites for the application of Article 14(2) of the PEAM rules are not met.

---