EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-519/19: Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Forte v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0519

62019TN0519

July 22, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

C 305/66

(Case T-519/19)

(2019/C 305/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Forte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: C. Forte and G. Forte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Primarily, annul the contested act;

Primarily, annul every previous and subsequent preparatory act connected to the contested act which has legal effects in regard to the applicant;

Order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against European Parliament Decision D (2019) 20777, signed by Mr Sune Hansen, Head of the Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements Unit, Directorate for financial and social entitlements, Directorate-General for Finance of the European Parliament, revising retirement pension rights following the entry into force on 1 January 2019 of Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and ordering recovery of the amounts unduly paid out.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Cases T-345/19, Santini v Parliament; T-347/19, Falqui v Parliament and T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

The applicant claims, in particular, that the reasoning for the contested decision is illogical; that there was no evaluation of the lawfulness of Resolution No 14/2018 in relation to the general EU-law principles of reasonableness, proportionality, certainty, predictability, legitimate expectations and the protection of acquired rights; infringement of Article 6 TEU; infringement of the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; infringement of the Financial Regulation; failure to observe the principles of equality and non-retroactivity of legal rules; and failure to observe the principle of access to protection and justice.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia