Appeal brought on 7 February 2022 by Jean-François Jalkh against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 1 December 2021 in Case T-230/21 Jalkh v Parliament

(Case C-82/22 P)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Jean-François Jalkh (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 1 December 2021 in Case T-230/21, Jalkh v Parliament;

annul the decision of the European Parliament P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant [2020/2110 (IMM)];

order the European Parliament to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

The first ground of appeal alleges a breach of the rule that ‘civil and administrative proceedings must await the outcome of criminal proceedings’. According to the appellant, the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment which led it to disregard legal provisions in force in the EU and the case-law of an EU country, which could and should have been taken into account in the appellant’s case, in order to suspend the procedure for the waiver of his immunity, having regard to the complaint against X seeking to join a civil action to proceedings lodged with the investigating magistrate in Brussels on 15 December 2020, on the ground of forgery and use of forged documents.

The second ground of appeal alleges a manifest error of assessment of EU law by failing to recognise the infringement by the European Parliament, via its JURI Committee, of Article 7 of Communication 0011/2019 of 19/11/2019.

According to the appellant, the General Court committed a manifest error of assessment of EU law and its general principles, such as the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration, which was of particular relevance to the proceedings, as the appellant argued that the handwritten phrase ‘very attentive’ in addition to the typewritten greeting on the letter from the Minister for Justice of 16 June 2020 should be regarded as revealing an eagerness on the part of the French Government to use the judicial proceedings at issue in the political debate and as such constituting fumus persecutionnis.

The third ground of appeal alleges an infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on Immunities. According to the appellant, the General Court acknowledged that the facts complained of, namely Jean-François Jalkh’s use of his parliamentary assistance budget, were covered by the immunity provided for in Article 9 of the Protocol, but confined itself to a general formula to dismiss the complaint without explaining its reasons.

____________