Case C-908/24 P: Appeal brought on 31 December 2024 by Crescenzio Rivellini against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2024 in Case T-465/23 Rivellini v European Parliament
Date: 2024-12-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, administrative procedure, conflict of interest, limitation of legal proceedings, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, proof, servant (EU)








C_202501088EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/1088


24.2.2025






Appeal brought on 31 December 2024 by Crescenzio Rivellini against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 23 October 2024 in Case T-465/23 Rivellini v European Parliament


(Case C-908/24 P)

(C/2025/1088)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Crescenzio Rivellini (represented by: A. Maffeo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment delivered by the General Court on 23 October 2024 in case T-465/23, Rivellini v Parliament, by which that court dismissed the action brought against the decision at issue and ordered the appellant to pay the costs;










—


accordingly, annul the decision at issue of 17 April 2023 of the Bureau of the European Parliament as well as the implied decision of the Quaestors of 4 October 2022 and related debit note No 7020000091 of 19 January 2022;










—


in the alternative, should the Court find that it cannot make a final ruling on the case at the present time, refer the case back to the General Court;










—


in any event, order the Parliament to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant raises five grounds of appeal:






1.


By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the scope of the obligation on a Member of the European Parliament to demonstrate the genuine nature of the activity carried out by an Accredited Parliamentary Assistant (APA) and of the company benefitting from service contracts and that its reasoning is contradictory. The appellant argues that, in the absence of a definition of the duties of an APA, the General Court erred where, in paragraph 29 of the judgment, it held that the ‘physical presence of the parliamentary assistant on the Parliament’s premises on the days in question … is not sufficient to establish the genuine nature of the tasks carried out in accordance with Article 33 of the IMSM.’ In addition, he claims that the General Court’s reasoning is contradictory in that it goes so far as to find that the certification procedure under Article 41 of the IMSM is irrelevant for the purposes of demonstrating the genuine nature of the services provided by the service company. In paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court, while pointing out that that procedure ‘pursues a strictly accounting objective’, then states that ‘that procedure [is] intended to verify the genuine nature of the work provided by the service provider.’ As such, although it is evident that the procedure laid down in Article 41 of the IMSM is clearly different from a recovery procedure, the determination of the genuine nature of the services carried out within the scope of the former, must also be relevant to the latter, at least as regards the creation of a legitimate expectation on the part of the person concerned as to the assessment of whether the services that are subject to the reporting are legitimate.










2.


By the second ground of appeal, the appellant complains of an incorrect assessment of the burden of proof on the Member of the European Parliament, taking into account the significant lapse of time between the contracts at issue and the request for the production of documents attesting to the genuine nature of the services provided. In the first part of that ground of appeal, the appellant alleges breach of his rights of defence resulting from infringement of the requirement for EU institutions to conclude proceedings within a reasonable time. In the second part of that ground of appeal, he alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations as regards the assessment of the legitimacy of the services received. In support of that assertion, the appellant argues that he was never notified, either directly or through the intermediary of the paying agent, of any challenge from the Parliament or any request for supplementary documents for the purposes of Article 39(3) and 41(2) of the IMSM.










3.


By the third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 43(c) and (d) and Article 58(2) of the IMSM in relation to the existence of a conflict of interest. The appellant alleges that the General Court made an error of law when it held that the condition to produce a certificate attesting to the stable non-marital partnership referred to in Article 58 of the IMSM, is irrelevant for the purposes of the application of the prohibition referred to in Article 43. If the legislature had intended to regulate the situations of stable non-marital partners, within the meaning of Article 43, differently from those regulated by Article 58 of the IMSM, it would not have included in the first provision a specific reference to the second.










4.


By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges, first, the determination of the starting point from which the limitation period runs for the Parliament’s right to claim reimbursement of sums paid for APA allowances. To start that time limit from the moment that the final OLAF report was sent, completed more than 7 years after the contracts at issue, would be tantamount to failing to set an effective limitation period, although that period seeks to protect legal certainty and sound financial management. Second, the appellant claims that the opening, by OLAF, of an administrative investigation, more than 7 years after the allegedly undue payment of the allowances at issue, and the subsequent notification, to the appellant, of a recovery decision and a corresponding debit note, more than 10 years after the conclusion of the contracts at issue, led to an infringement of the ordinary diligence required from the EU institutions.










5.


By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant contests the decision as to costs.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/1088/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)