21.3.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/35

(Case T-618/15)

(2016/C 106/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Udo Voigt (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the refusal of the President of the European Parliament to give access to the rooms of the European Parliament for the applicant’s press-conference planned for 16 June 2015;

—annul the ban from entering the premises of the European Parliament imposed by the President of the European Parliament on the Russian participants of the press conference of 16 June 2015;

—order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties

—The applicant claims that the refusal of the use of the requested rooms and the ban imposed on the Russian participants of the press conference from entering the European Parliament infringes the Treaties or the relevant provisions for their enforcement.

—In accordance with the rules of the President of the European Parliament’s office on political group meetings of 4 July 2005, the applicant is entitled to have the requested rooms made available. No exceptional grounds for the refusal were present, since the rooms had not been reserved for the time at issue and the planned press conference did not pose a risk to security and would not have adversely affected the Parliament’s functioning. The applicant was thereby hindered from providing information on his parliamentary work.

—The ban from entering the premises imposed on the Russian guests infringes the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin and nationality (Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

2.Second plea in law: misuse of powers

—The applicant claims that the actions of the President of the European Parliament were manifestly purely arbitrary and are diametrically opposed to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the Treaties.