# C_2023286EN.01002902.xml

| 14.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 286/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 286/29

---

Action brought on 23 May 2023 — Fest v Parliament

(Case T-305/23)

(2023/C 286/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nicolaus Fest (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: G. Seidel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the decision of the European Parliament of 14 March 2023 (P9_TA(2023) 0061) on the request for waiver of the immunity of Nicolaus Fest [2022/2056 (IMM)] approving the report (A9-0055/2023) drafted by Ilana Cicurel is void. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the decision of the European Parliament of 14 March 2023 (P9_TA(2023) 0061) on the request for waiver of the immunity of Nicolaus Fest [2022/2056 (IMM)] approving the report (A9-0055/2023) drafted by Ilana Cicurel is void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | Infringement of Article 8 of the Protocol on the Immunities and Privileges of Members of Parliament (1)

  The applicant submits that the statements of which he is accused form part of a parliamentary debate on the protection of children which took place in the plenary session of the European Parliament and fall within the general interest and freedom of expression enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament. The tweet of which he is accused was a response to a tweet by a former member of the Deutscher Bundestag (Lower House of the German Federal Parliament), whose tweet directly addressed an accusation made by the applicant in a parliamentary debate. The applicant considers that the European Parliament should not waive his immunity on those grounds. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Infringement of Article 8 of the Protocol on the Immunities and Privileges of Members of Parliament (1)

The applicant submits that the statements of which he is accused form part of a parliamentary debate on the protection of children which took place in the plenary session of the European Parliament and fall within the general interest and freedom of expression enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament. The tweet of which he is accused was a response to a tweet by a former member of the Deutscher Bundestag (Lower House of the German Federal Parliament), whose tweet directly addressed an accusation made by the applicant in a parliamentary debate. The applicant considers that the European Parliament should not waive his immunity on those grounds.

| 2. | Existence of a fumus persecutionis

  The applicant suspects that the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office, through which the prosecution is being conducted, is taking action in this case only in order to harm a political opponent or to take revenge for an embarrassment in earlier proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Existence of a fumus persecutionis

The applicant suspects that the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office, through which the prosecution is being conducted, is taking action in this case only in order to harm a political opponent or to take revenge for an embarrassment in earlier proceedings.

---

(1)  Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266).

---