Language of document :

Action brought on 13 August 2010 - Morte Navarro v Parliament

(Case T-280/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Carlos Morte Navarro (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: J. González Buitrón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

annul the Decision of 5 May 2009, issue number 202660, of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions, by which it closed Petition No 1818-08 submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro, give a fresh decision that declares admissible Petition No 1818-08 submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro to the European Parliament and examines that petition in accordance with the legally established procedure, and order the defendant to pay the costs;

in the alternative, if the above claim does not succeed, annul the above-mentioned Decision of 5 May 2009, and

order the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions to adopt a new decision that determines whether or not the petition submitted by Mr. Morte Navarro is admissible, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the Decision of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions of 5 May 2009, by which it decided to take no further action on the petition submitted by the applicant on the ground that it clearly does not come within the jurisdiction of the European Union.

In his petition, the applicant requested that an investigation be initiated by the European Parliament with a view to the latter, pursuant to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, asking the Council to declare the existence of a serious and persistent breach by the Spanish State of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, referred to in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges the lack of a proper statement of reasons in the contested decision, given that it sets out no arguments, other than the simple assertion that the issue raised clearly does not fall within the area of activity of the European Union, which would enable him to be informed of the reasons and grounds that have led the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions to take no further action on the petition.

____________