Action brought on 19 April 2024 – Kaili v Parliament

(Case T-212/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eva Kaili (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the decision of 6 February 2024 by which the Parliament waived the applicant’s immunity;

order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of an essential procedural requirement. The President of the Parliament and the Committee on Legal Affairs failed to comply with their obligation to examine the legality of the request for the waiver of the applicant’s immunity.

Second plea in law, alleging absence of a legal basis for the European Chief Prosecutor’s request of 15 December 2022.

Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence on the part of the European Chief Prosecutor to request the waiver of the applicant’s immunity.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of the applicant’s immunity, as provided for in Articles 7 and 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 266) ( ‘Protocol on the privileges and immunities’).

Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of Article 29(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1).

Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Committee on Legal Affairs of Articles 7 to 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities and Rules 5(2) and 6(1) and Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament.

Seventh plea in law, alleging an infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard.

Eighth plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Parliament of point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities.

Ninth plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, an infringement of point (a) of the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities.

Tenth plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities inasmuch as the Parliament refused to accept the existence of fumus persecutionis.

____________