- 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
Case T-347/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0347
62011TN0347
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
27.8.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/43
(Case T-347/11)
2011/C 252/93
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
—annul the decision of European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt Report No A7-0154/2011;
—award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage;
—award Mr GOLLNISCH 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
The applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0154/2011) and to reject the request for the defence of immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch (2010/2097(IMM)) and, second, compensation for the non-material damage that it allegedly suffered in consequence of the adoption of the contested decision.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:
1.First plea, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union of 8 April 1965.
2.Second plea, concerning the necessary application in the present case of Article 9 of the Protocol.
3.Third plea, alleging failure to follow the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament.
4.Fourth plea, alleging failure to respect the legal certainty of European Union law and breach of legitimate expectations.
5.Fifth plea, alleging breach of the independence of a Member.
6.Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the provisions of the rules of the European Parliament relating to proceedings which might lead to the disqualification of a Member.
7.Seventh plea, alleging breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the applicant’s rights of defence.