# C_2016279EN.01004001.xml

| 1.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/40

---

Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

(Case T-302/16)

(2016/C 279/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in limine litis,

| — | annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;

| — | annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;
  in substance, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;

in substance,

| — | withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016. |
| --- | --- |

—

withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.

| 2. | Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.

| 3. | Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.

---