- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 October 2008 (references for preliminary rulings from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Alfonso Luigi Marra v Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — European Parliament — Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks — Claim for non-pecuniary damages — Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007CA0200
62007CA0200
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
6.12.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 313/6
(Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - European Parliament - Leaflet issued by a Member of the European Parliament containing insulting remarks - Claim for non-pecuniary damages - Immunity of Members of the European Parliament)
(2008/C 313/09)
Language of the cases: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Alfonso Luigi Marra
Respondents: Eduardo De Gregorio (C-200/07), Antonio Clemente (C-201/07)
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) and Rule 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) — Claim for non-pecuniary damages in relation to insulting remarks made by a Member of the European Parliament — Competence of the civil court to rule as to the existence or otherwise of privilege in the absence of a decision of the European Parliament
Operative part of the judgment
The Community rules relating to the immunity of Members of the European Parliament must be interpreted as meaning that, in an action for damages brought against a Member of the European Parliament in respect of opinions he has expressed,
—where the national court which has to rule on such an action has received no information regarding a request by that Member to the European Parliament seeking defence of the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, it is not obliged to request the European Parliament to give a decision on whether the conditions for that immunity are met;
—where the national court is informed of the fact that that Member has made a request to the European Parliament for defence of that immunity, within the meaning of Rule 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, it must stay the judicial proceedings and request the European Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible;
—where the national court considers that that Member enjoys the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, it is obliged to dismiss the action brought against the Member concerned.
* * *
(1) OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.