# C_2017070EN.01002301.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/23

---

Action brought on 28 December 2016 — Collins v Parliament

(Case T-919/16)

(2017/C 070/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jane Maria Collins (Hotham, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Anderson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 no to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant,

| — | rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the request of the applicant for the Parliament to defend her immunity and privileges under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union,

| — | compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision, |
| --- | --- |

—

compensate for the non-material damages suffered by the application as the result of that decision,

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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 violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hear the evidence adduced by the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to adequately explain the reasons for the decision not to defend the immunity of the applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the failure of the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament to hold an impartial hearing.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a grave error in law by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs and the European Parliament.

---