Case C-308/07 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2007 in Case T-132/06, Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European Parliament
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), appeal, parliamentary allowance, power of assessment

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/23

Appeal brought on 5 July 2007 by Koldo Gorostiaga
Atxalandabaso against the order of
the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 April 2007 in
Case T-132/06, Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v European
Parliament

(Case C-308/07 P)

(2007/C 211/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (represented by: D.
Rouget, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— declare this appeal to be well-founded and, consequently,
annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 24 April
2007;

— give a definitive ruling on the proceedings and annul the
decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament
of 22 March 2006, ordering the reimbursement by the
appellant of a sum of EUR 118 360,18 and proceeding to
make a deduction from various parliamentary allowances
owed to the appellant by the Parliament;

— order the defendant to pay its own costs and those incurred

by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes six pleas in support of his appeal.

In his third plea, the appellant claims that the Court incorrectly
interpreted the scope of the judgment of 22 December 2005.
Since the decision taken by the Secretary General of the Parlia-
ment on 24 February 2004 had been annulled as ultra vires, the
appellant in fact had no reason to lodge an appeal against that
judgment before the Court of Justice, since the effect of the
finding of ultra vires by the Court of First Instance was that the
flawed decision did not exist.

In his fourth plea, the appellant challenges the Court's automatic
refusal to take into account the arguments which he had put
forward to obtain the annulment of the decision of the Secre-
tary General of the Parliament of 22 March 2006. He submits
that that last decision is in fact a new decision, separate from
the decision of 24 February 2004, and the Court therefore had
a duty to examine all the pleas, of substance and procedure,
which he had put forward to challenge it.

In his fifth plea, the appellant criticises the Court for having
refused to consider the plea alleging force majeure, even though
no such plea had been raised in the action brought against the
decision of 24 February 2004.

Lastly,
in his sixth plea the appellant criticises the Court for
having misinterpreted the principle of sound administration by
refusing, inter alia, any reference to the Code of Good Adminis-
trative Behaviour adopted by the Parliament on 6 September
2001.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds
Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 June 2007 — Svenska
staten genom Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders
Holmqvist

(Case C-310/07)

(2007/C 211/44)

Language of the case: Swedish

In his first plea, the appellant challenges the use of Article 111
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, which
he claims denies him the right to a fair trial since he has neither
been given prior opportunity to express his views before the
Court of First Instance nor been able to reply to the Parliament's
arguments.

Referring court

Lunds Tingsrätt

In his second plea, the appellant submits that the principle of
impartiality has been infringed since the same judges ruled on
the substance of the two successive actions which he brought in
Cases T-146/04 and T-132/06 — which gave rise, respectively,
to the judgment of 22 December 2005 and to the order of
24 April 2007. That principle demands that a judge cannot
hear and determine, even at the same level of jurisdiction, a case
based on facts which are identical, or sufficiently connected, to
those of a case on which he has ruled previously.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
konkurser

Svenska

staten

genom Tillsynsmyndigheten

i

Defendant: Anders Holmqvist