Action brought on 28 April 2021 – Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-230/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvilliers, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul European Parliament Decision P9_TA(2021)0092 of 25 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of the applicant (2020/2110 IMM) and effectively waiving his immunity;

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.    First plea in law, plea of illegality against Article 32 of Communication No 0011/2019 of 19 November 2019. The applicant takes the view that that the fact that a Member cannot take a copy of the file allows it to be manipulated before it is communicated to the members of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament (‘the JURI Committee’). According to him, that provision constitutes a manifest violation of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair trial, and infringement of the general principle of equality of arms and of fairness in proceedings.

2.    Second plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements. The plea is divided into four parts.

First part, alleging the offence of forgery and usage of forged documents committed by the rapporteur of the JURI Committee and its Chair.

Second part, alleging violation of the ‘priority of criminal over administrative and civil actions’ rule.

Third part, alleging infringement by the Parliament of Article 7 of Communication No 0011/2019 of 19 November 2019.

Fourth part, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

3.    Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266; ‘the Protocol’).

4.    Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol. In this regard, the applicant claims a blatant case of fumus persecutionis.

____________