Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/36

(Case T-284/17)

(2017/C 231/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the European Parliament resolution of 2 March 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen, 2016/2295(IMM);

—order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

—order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs;

—order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No. 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’). This plea is divided into four parts.

—First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

—Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

—Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

—Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol. This plea is divided into three parts.

—First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol.

—Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen.

—Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution.

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. This plea is divided into two parts.

—First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

—Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.