Action brought on 31 January 2012 - Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-84/12)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Uspaskich (Kėdainiai, Lithuania) (represented by: Aivaras Raišutis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Decision No P7_TA(2011)0541 of the European Parlimanent of 1 December 2011 concerning a request for defence of the applicant's immunity;

grant the applicant's request of 11 April 2011 for renewal of consideration of the Principal State Prosecutor's request that immunity be waived;

protect the applicant's immunity;

award the applicant EUR 10 000 in damages;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The first plea is connected with infringement of the right to reconsideration of an earlier decision when new facts giving rise to a presumption of fumus persecutionis have come to light.

The second plea is connected with infringement of the right to impartial consideration of the request, the same person having been appointed rapporteur in the second case concerning defence of immunity.

The third plea is connected with infringement of rights of the defence and the right to have one's affairs handled fairly.

The fourth plea is connected with infringement of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, it being argued that the European Parliament adopted the contested decision on an incorrect legal basis and infringed subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 9 of that protocol because it relied on a manifestly incorrect interpretation of the first and second paragraphs of Article 62 of the Lithuanian Constitution.

The fifth plea is connected with a manifestly incorrect assessment of fumus persecutionis. In the applicant's submission, the European Parliament made an incorrect assessment as regards the binding nature of its previous decisions concerning immunity and as regards the concept of fumus, and it refused to consider the applicant's arguments concerning fumus persecutionis on the basis of which he had to be recognised as a victim of political persecution.

____________