CELEX: C2005/296/63
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-345/05: Action brought on  5 September 2005  — V/Parliament

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/29
            
         Action brought on 5 September 2005 — V/Parliament
   (Case T-345/05)
   (2005/C 296/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): V. (Binsted, United Kingdom) [represented by: J. Lofthouse, barrister, M. Monan, C. Hayes, solicitors]
   
      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               declare void and annul the Decision of the European Parliament dated 5 July 2005 to waive the applicant's immunity;
            
         
               —
            
            
               declare that the said Decision, even if valid, would in any event be void as to waiver of privilege, since it speaks only of immunity; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a Member of the European Parliament. Criminal proceedings were instituted against him following which the Parliament was requested to confirm that the applicant's prosecution might proceed in accordance with the 1965 Protocol on privileges and immunities of the European Communities and, in any event, waive any privilege or immunity so that the prosecution could proceed. By the contested Decision the Parliament decided to waive the applicant's immunity.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of this Decision. He submits that the Decision was wrong in law in that it considers that Article 8 of the 1965 Protocol does not grant protection against judicial prosecution. He argues that the Parliament's reasoning is inconsistent, waiving something that it holds not to exist.
   The applicant further contends that the Parliament did not carry out a fair and complete consideration of the facts and arguments of both sides. In this context the applicant also invokes a violation of Rule 7(7) of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, to the extent that the Committee expressed an opinion on the merits of the prosecution whilst forbidden from doing so.
   The applicant finally invokes the absence of full and adequate reasons for the contested Decision and submits that it was not reasonable or proportionate.