# C_2022463EN.01005501.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/55

---

Action brought on 23 September 2022 — RM v Parliament

(Case T-593/22)

(2022/C 463/81)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: RM (represented by: D. Aukštuolytė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 25 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 25 July 2022;

| — | cancel debit note No 7020001038 issued by the European Parliament on 27 July 2022; |
| --- | --- |

—

cancel debit note No 7020001038 issued by the European Parliament on 27 July 2022;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament infringed the five-year period laid down in Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, within which a debit note must be sent in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as, as from 17 June 2016, the Parliament was in a position to claim its debt from the applicant and had in its possession all the supporting accounting documents relating to that debt, but did not send a debit note to the applicant until 27 July 2022. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament infringed the five-year period laid down in Article 98(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018, within which a debit note must be sent in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 68 of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, in so far as, as from 17 June 2016, the Parliament was in a position to claim its debt from the applicant and had in its possession all the supporting accounting documents relating to that debt, but did not send a debit note to the applicant until 27 July 2022.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly delayed in initiating the recovery procedure by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time, as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the late initiation of the procedure deprived the applicant of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made by gathering the necessary evidence when it was still possible to do so. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Parliament, without justification, unreasonably and unfairly delayed in initiating the recovery procedure by failing to observe the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable time, as laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Because of this, the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the late initiation of the procedure deprived the applicant of the opportunity to defend himself effectively against the allegations made by gathering the necessary evidence when it was still possible to do so.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess properly the evidence and explanations submitted by the applicant to substantiate the work of his local assistant, thereby imposing an excessively high standard of proof on the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed an error of assessment, in that it failed to assess properly the evidence and explanations submitted by the applicant to substantiate the work of his local assistant, thereby imposing an excessively high standard of proof on the applicant.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---