CELEX: 62019CN0130
Language: en
Date: 2019-02-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-130/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — European Court of Auditors v Karel Pinxten

29.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 148/24
            
         
      Action brought on 15 February 2019 — European Court of Auditors v Karel Pinxten
      (Case C-130/19)
      (2019/C 148/22)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: European Court of Auditors (represented by: C. Lesauvage, E. von Bardeleben, J. Vermer, acting as Agents)
      
         Defendant: Karel Pinxten
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Declare that Mr Pinxten no longer meets the obligations arising from his office under Articles 285 and 286 TFEU and the rules adopted in application thereof;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Impose, consequently, the penalty laid down in Article 286(6) TFEU, the Court of Auditors leaving it to the discretion of the Court to determine the scope;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order Mr Pinxten to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      The Court of Auditors complains that Mr Pinxten:
      
                  —
               
               
                  firstly, made improper use of the resources of the Court of Auditors in order to finance activities with no connection or incompatible with his duties as a Member;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  secondly, made improper and unlawful use of tax privileges;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  thirdly, made false insurance claims in the context of alleged accidents involving the service vehicle made available to him;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  fourthly, exercised managed activities for a commercial company and intense political activity within a political party although he was in the service of the Court of Auditors;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  fifthly, created a situation of conflict of interests by making a service offer to an official of an audited entity.