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-302/16: Action brought on 10 June 2016 — Bay v Parliament

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62016TN0302

62016TN0302

June 10, 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

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/40

(Case T-302/16)

(2016/C 279/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Nicolas Bay (La Celle-Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: A. Cuignache, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

in limine litis,

annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016;

annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016;

in substance,

withdraw the penalty imposed by the decision of 11 April 2016.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: irregularities of internal procedure and invalidity of the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 9 March 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 11 April 2016, imposing on the applicant the penalty of forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of 5 days. The first contested decision undermines the right to good administration and the principle of equality of arms. The second contested decision undermines the right to have ones affairs handled impartially and fairly by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and the right to a fair trial.

2.Second plea in law: lack of material evidence which could demonstrate the allegations against the applicant and, in particular, the applicant’s use of another Member of the European Parliament’s voting card.

3.Third plea in law: inconsistency and inadmissibility of the testimonies on which the penalty imposed on the applicant is based.

4.Fourth plea in law: the physical impossibility of the applicant voting in the place of another Member of the European Parliament.

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