# C_2017239EN.01006901.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/69

---

Action brought on 2 June 2017 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament

(Case T-352/17)

(2017/C 239/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, A. Daoût and M. Dekleermaker, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare this action admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

Consequently:

| — | Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 3 April 2017;

| — | Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 14 March 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 14 March 2017;

| — | Order reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss caused by the contested decisions, or award the applicant the sum of EUR 19 180; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss caused by the contested decisions, or award the applicant the sum of EUR 19 180;

| — | In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of freedom of expression, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter, with the particular circumstance that the remarks referred to in the contested decisions were made by a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his functions and inside the premises of the European Union institutions, and infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, of Article 41 of the Charter, of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, of Article 296 TFEU, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of freedom of expression, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter, with the particular circumstance that the remarks referred to in the contested decisions were made by a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his functions and inside the premises of the European Union institutions, and infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, of Article 41 of the Charter, of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, of Article 296 TFEU, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.

ultra vires

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, the general principle of proportionality, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, the general principle of proportionality, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.

ultra vires

---