Asunto T-132/06: Recurso interpuesto el 12 de mayo de 2006 — Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso/Parlamento

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Published date: 19 July 2006
• Celex Number: C2006/165/56

15.7.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 165/28

---

Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament

(Case T-132/06)

(2006/C 165/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (Saint Pierre-d'Irube, France) (represented by: D. Rouget, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision of the Secretary-General of 22 March 2006;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 22 December 2005, in an action brought by the applicant, a former Member of the European Parliament, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities gave a judgment (Case T-146/04 Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament (1)) in which it annulled, on the ground of procedural irregularity, the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances in so far as it provided that the sum owed by the applicant would be recovered by offsetting. The remainder of the application was dismissed. Following that judgment, the Secretary-General of the Parliament adopted a new decision on 22 March 2006 for recovery of the sums paid to the applicant by offsetting. That is the contested decision.

In support of his action for annulment, the applicant submits first an argument relating to infringement of res judicata in so far as the procedure for adopting the contested decision is not, in his opinion, in accordance with the Court of First Instance's judgment of 22 December 2005. The second argument relates to alleged infringement of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, in particular Article 27(3) and (4) thereof. Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is force majeure in that it is impossible for him to gain access to his accounts and the authorities of one of the Member States refuse to return to him a sum attached during other proceedings. The applicant also submits infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the consultation procedures were not followed correctly in taking the contested decision. The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principles of...