Case T-42/06 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  12 May 2006  — Gollnisch v Parliament (Application for Interim measures — Act of the Parliament — Defence of immunity of a Member of Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — Admissible)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, Member of the European Parliament, Statute for Members of the Parliament, action for annulment (EU), freedom of expression, indemnification

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/27

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 12
May 2006 — Gollnisch v Parliament

Form of order sought

(Case T-42/06 R)

(Application for Interim measures — Act of the Parliament
— Defence of immunity of a Member of Parliament —
Application for suspension of operation — Admissible)

(2006/C 165/53)

Language of the case: French

— Annul Commission Decision C (2006) 426 final of 22
February 2006 concerning the proposed amendment to the
national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas
emission allowances notified by the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

— order the Commission to bear the applicants' costs of these

proceedings.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented: by
W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by:H. Krück, C.
Karamarcos and A. Padowska, Agents)

Re:

On 10 November 2004, the United Kingdom notified its inten-
tion to amend its provisional national allocation plan for the
allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances
to the
Commission. The Commission decision finding the proposed
challenged by the United
amendment
Kingdom following which the decision was annulled by the
Court of First Instance in its judgment in Case T-178/05 (1).

inadmissible was

Application for suspension of the operation of the European
Parliament's Decision of 13 December 2005 not to defend the
immunity and privileges of Mr. Gollnisch.

Following this annulment, the Commission adopted a new deci-
sion concluding that the proposed amendment was inadmis-
sible. This decision is now being challenged by the applicants.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is rejected.

2. The costs are reserved.

Action brought on 3 May 2006 — Drax Power and others
v Commission

(Case T-130/06)

(2006/C 165/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Drax Power Ltd (Selby, United Kingdom), Great
Yarmouth Power Ltd (Swindon, United Kingdom), International
Power Plc (London, United Kingdom), Npower Copgen Ltd
(Swindon, United Kingdom), RWE Npower Plc (Swindon,
United Kingdom), ScottishPower Generation Ltd (Glasgow,
United Kingdom), Scottish and Southern Energy Plc (Perth,
United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Glick, QC, and M. Cook,
Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicants own, directly or through their subsidiaries, elec-
tricity generating facilities covered by Directive 2003/87/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October
2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allow-
ance trading within the Community and amending Council
Directive 96/61/EC (2). The proposed amendment
to the
national allocation plan would result in them receiving signifi-
cantly more allowances than those currently allocated.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decision is in contradiction with the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-178/05 and that the issues
raised in the contested decision form res judicata.

to the

applicants,

According
the Commission wrongly
concludes that the date of 30 September 2004 specified in
Article 11(1) of the Directive is a cut-off deadline, and that
Member States are not permitted to propose any amendments
to their national allocation plans after that deadline, other than
those required by a Commission decision.

The applicants furthermore claim that the concerns expressed
about the functioning of the emissions trading scheme are
overstated and could not justify the rejection of the proposed
amendment.

(1) Case T-178/05 United Kingdom v Commission [2005] ECR II-0000
(2) OJ 2003 L 275, p.32.