Action brought on 22 June 2007 - Donnici v Parliament

(Case T-215/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (represented by: M. Sanino, G. Roberti, I. Perego and P. Salvatore, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 24 May 2007 on the verification of the applicant's credentials;

declare Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament unlawful under Article 241 EC;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case declares invalid the mandate as member of the European Parliament of Beniamino Donnici, whose election was communicated by the competent national authorities, and confirms the validity of the mandate of Achille Occhetto.

It should be noted in this regard that, in a decision which has become final, the Consiglio di Stato annulled the declaration of the election of Achille Occhetto to the European Parliament.

In support of his claims, the applicant submits that the European Parliament:

was not competent to rule on the validity of the mandate conferred on him as member of the European Parliament;

infringed Article 12 of the 1976 Act, legislation which does not in any way permit it to challenge decisions taken by the national authorities acting within their powers;

misapplied Rule 3(5) of the Rules of Procedure, which, it is also submitted, is unlawful as being at variance with the 1976 Act. The Rules of Procedure, in so far as they are a source of secondary legislation, cannot of themselves confer powers on the European Parliament which are not already provided for in that Act;

wrongly took the view that it could find that there had been an infringement of Article 6 of the 1976 Act and also breached the principle of res judicata by 'disapplying' the judgments, now final and conclusive, which had been delivered in the matter by the national courts;

failed to give adequate reasons for the contested decision and, in particular, failed to explain the reasons which led it to disregard the contrary opinion delivered by its Legal Service on this matter.

____________