# C_2019082EN.01005801.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/58

---

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Briois v Parliament

(Case T-750/18)

(2019/C 82/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Steeve Briois (Hénin-Beaumont, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (2018/2075 IMM) to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs A8-0349/2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (2018/2075 IMM) to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs A8-0349/2018;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), in so far as the wording used by Mr Briois, which has given rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin, constitutes the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the Protocol’), in so far as the wording used by Mr Briois, which has given rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin, constitutes the expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol, in so far as the Parliament misconstrued both the letter and the spirit of that provision by adopting the decision to waive the immunity of Mr Briois and thus vitiated that decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol, in so far as the Parliament misconstrued both the letter and the spirit of that provision by adopting the decision to waive the immunity of Mr Briois and thus vitiated that decision.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and of good administration.
  In the first place, the applicant claims that the Parliament has infringed the principle of equal treatment in his regard by treating him differently from other Members of Parliament in comparable situations and that the Parliament has therefore also infringed the principle of good administration under which the competent institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case.
  In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence supporting the conclusion that there is a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal treatment and of good administration.

In the first place, the applicant claims that the Parliament has infringed the principle of equal treatment in his regard by treating him differently from other Members of Parliament in comparable situations and that the Parliament has therefore also infringed the principle of good administration under which the competent institution is required to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of each individual case.

In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence supporting the conclusion that there is a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him.

---