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-770/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0770

62016TN0770

November 2, 2016
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

9.1.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/50

(Case T-770/16)

(2017/C 006/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Declare the present action admissible and well founded;

In consequence:

Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 August 2016;

Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 5 July 2016 imposing the same sanctions;

Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions; in the alternative award the applicant the sum of EUR 13 306;

In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, infringement of the freedom of speech and of expression of EU citizens, with the particular circumstance that the comments referred to in the decision were made by an MEP in the exercise of his duties and inside the EU institutions, and infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and/or infringement of the general principle of impartial treatment.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of the defence and Article 166(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given for acts of the EU institutions and infringement of the principles of proportionality and ne bis in idem.

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