CELEX: C2006/086/73
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-42/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

8.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/36
            
         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament
   (Case T-42/06)
   (2006/C 86/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: W. de Saint Just, lawyer)
   
      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 13 December 2005 to adopt Report No A6-0376/2005,
            
         
               —
            
            
               award Mr Gollnisch the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage,
            
         
               —
            
            
               further, award the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, seeks the annulment of the decision made by the Parliament in plenary sitting on 13 December 2005 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs No A6-0376/2005 concerning remarks the applicant made at a press conference and consequently not to defend his immunity and privileges. He also seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the contested decision.
   In support of his application, the applicant relies on several pleas in law alleging inter alia the unlawfulness of the form of the decision of Parliament whose annulment is sought, its inconsistency with general principles of law such as legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations and procedural irregularities at the time of its adoption. He also submits that the contested decision is contrary to the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament as regards freedom of expression and fumus persecutionis and that it undermines the independence of an elected representative in that, according to the applicant, it is disputed that he spoke in the exercise of his national and European political activities at the press conference in question.