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-799/19: Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0799

62019TN0799

November 18, 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

10.2.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/78

(Case T-799/19)

(2020/C 45/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, and M. Ganilsy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 September 2019;

annul debit note No 2019-1598 ordering the recovery of EUR 15 105;

order the European Parliament to pay 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 that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work.

2.Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament were incorrect.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a reversal of burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is not for him to adduce evidence as regards the work of his parliamentary assistant; rather, it is for the Parliament to prove the contrary.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant implies that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

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