# C_2017231EN.01003601.xml

| 17.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/36 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T-284/17)

(2017/C 231/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Parliament resolution of 2 March 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen, 2016/2295(IMM); |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | 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 four 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’). This plea is divided into four parts.
—
First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. —
Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. —
Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. —
Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol. | — | First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | — | Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | — | Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | — | Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | | | | | | | | |
| — | Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | | | | | | | | |
| — | Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol. | | | | | | | | |
| — | Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol. | | | | | | | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol. This plea is divided into three parts.
—
First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol. —
Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen. —
Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution. | — | First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol. | — | Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen. | — | Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol. | | | | | | |
| — | Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen. | | | | | | |
| — | Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution. | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. This plea is divided into two parts.
—
First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. —
Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration. | — | First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. | — | Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. | | | | |
| — | Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration. | | | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence. |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---