CELEX: C2004/168/16
Language: en
Date: 2004-06-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-146/04: Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament

26.6.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 168/9
            
         Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament
   (Case T-146/04)
   (2004/C 168/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso, residing in Saint Pierre d'Irube (France), represented by Didier Rouget, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul European Parliament decision of 24 February 2004 to make deductions on the allowances owing to the applicant until his alleged debt to the Parliament is paid off;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the European Parliament found that, in the absence of vouchers attesting to the use of the various parliamentary allowances, the applicant, a Member of Parliament, owed the sum of EUR 118 360.18 and proceeded to make deductions on those allowances.
   The applicant contests that decision, arguing that the Parliament infringed the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members, inter alia on the grounds that it was taken by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and not by the Bureau of the Parliament, as provided for by Article 27 of those rules. The applicant also alleges that the contested decision infringes the principles of objectivity, impartiality, equality and non-discrimination and also the principle that both parties must be heard and the rights of the defence. He also alleges that the contested decision did not contain sufficient reasons and that it is a misuse of powers, since it was adopted to attain purely political objectives. Lastly, the applicant states that there has been a manifest error of appreciation by the Parliament.