EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/47

Action brought on 16 January 2009 — Vanhecke v Parliament

(Case T-14/09)

(2009/C 69/104)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Frank Vanhecke (Bruges, Belgium) (represented by: R. Tournicourt and B. Siffert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— set aside the contested decision of the European Parliament of 18 November 2008, which was notified to the applicant on 30 November 2008, by which the applicant's parliamentary immunity was waived;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By letter addressed to the President of the European Parliament, the Belgian Minister for Justice requested that the applicant's parliamentary immunity be waived. According to the applicant, this request was submitted in response to an application made by the public prosecutor's office in the town of Dendermonde, which sought to prosecute the applicant on the basis of the content of an article published in a local party newspaper in the town of Sint-Niklaas of which the applicant was the responsible publisher.

The European Parliament subsequently decided to waive the applicant's parliamentary immunity.

In support of his application, the applicant first of all submits that, in accordance with Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the members of the European Parliament enjoy, within their own respective territories, the immunities which are conferred on members of national parliaments in their respective countries. From this it follows, according to the applicant, that an application to have the immunity of a member of the European Parliament waived may be made only by the body which is authorised under national law to seek revocation of the immunity of a member of the national parliament. Consequently, an application for the institution of the procedure for lifting parliamentary immunity ought to be addressed to the Minister for Justice by the central public prosecutor's office, as this exists at the level of the Hof van beroep (Court of Appeal), and not, as has happened in the present case, by a local public prosecutor's office organised at local district level.

The second plea in law concerns the taking of the decision within the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament. The applicant submits that the members of the Committee who took the decision on the request that the applicant's parliamentary immunity be waived either had to be present at the hearing when the applicant set out his views or had to have a true and accurate report available to them which set out the line of argument followed. The applicant claims that this was not the case here.

Third, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of confidentiality and the obligation of secrecy. He submits in this regard that, before the final vote was taken by the Committee on Legal Affairs, the report of the committee chairperson was already available to the press.

Fourth, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament by reason of the fact that any debate in the plenary session was made impossible.

Fifth, the applicant alleges deficient reasoning inasmuch as the contested decision confines itself to referring to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs.

Sixth, the applicant takes issue with the reasoning employed by the Committee on Legal Affairs to the effect that ‘an MEP's duties do not include acting as responsible editor for a national party newspaper’. The applicant takes the view that one of the tasks of a politician is to express and disseminate a political opinion, and the publication and drafting, as the responsible editor, of political tracts and publications is, in particular, part of the task of a member of the European Parliament.