# C_2019263EN.01006001.xml

| 5.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 263/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 263/60

---

Action brought on 14 June 2019 — Jalkh v Parlement

(Case T-360/19)

(2019/C 263/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)) as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations (COM(2018)0338 C8-0214/2018 2018J0170(COD); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)) as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations (COM(2018)0338 C8-0214/2018 2018J0170(COD);

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

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

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 infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution grants the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) access to personal information, which is contrary to the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution grants the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) access to personal information, which is contrary to the right to the protection of private life and the right to the protection of personal data.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, in so far as the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The applicant claims that the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament and to access documents that are not documents of the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 4 of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The applicant claims that the contested resolution allows OLAF to circumvent the parliamentary immunity of Members of Parliament and to access documents that are not documents of the European Parliament.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in so far as the contested resolution violates the rights of defence of Members of Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in so far as the contested resolution violates the rights of defence of Members of Parliament.

---