# C_2012025EN.01005302.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/53

---

Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Farage v Parliament and Buzek

(Case T-564/11)

(2012/C 25/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nigel Paul Farage (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bennett, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament and Jerzy Buzek (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

| — | Revoke the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek, dated 2 March 2010 imposing on the applicant a forfeiture of entitlement to daily subsistence allowance of ten days, as well as the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 24 March 2010 and of the President of the European Parliament of 31 August 2011, declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request for parliamentary immunity; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Revoke the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek, dated 2 March 2010 imposing on the applicant a forfeiture of entitlement to daily subsistence allowance of ten days, as well as the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 24 March 2010 and of the President of the European Parliament of 31 August 2011, declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request for parliamentary immunity; and

| — | In the alternative, a declaration that none of the above-mentioned decisions are valid or ought to have been made. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, a declaration that none of the above-mentioned decisions are valid or ought to have been made.

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 breach of Article 8 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 84, p. 99), as the speech of the applicant on 24 February 2010 was made in his capacity as a member of the European Parliament. As such, the speech in question made political points and it is of prime importance that a member of the European Parliament can speak freely. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 8 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 84, p. 99), as the speech of the applicant on 24 February 2010 was made in his capacity as a member of the European Parliament. As such, the speech in question made political points and it is of prime importance that a member of the European Parliament can speak freely.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of free speech, as no proper account was taken of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2011 L 116, p. 1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of free speech, as no proper account was taken of Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2011 L 116, p. 1)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as any participation of the President of the Parliament in the decision making process in the present matter, or of anybody else who was present during the plenary session of 24 February 2010 and had formed a view, disabled such person from taking part in such process. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as any participation of the President of the Parliament in the decision making process in the present matter, or of anybody else who was present during the plenary session of 24 February 2010 and had formed a view, disabled such person from taking part in such process.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to correctly interpret Rule 152(1) and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the penalties set out in the latter provision must be read in the context of its opening words, relating primarily to serious cases of disorder or disruption ‘...in violation of the principles laid down in Rule 9...’. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to correctly interpret Rule 152(1) and Rule 153 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as the penalties set out in the latter provision must be read in the context of its opening words, relating primarily to serious cases of disorder or disruption ‘...in violation of the principles laid down in Rule 9...’.

---