—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 6 February 2018 on the application for the waiver of immunity of Steeve Briois 2017/2221 (IMM) adopting the Report of the Legal Affairs Committee A8-0011/2018;

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Steeve Briois the sum of EUR 35000 as compensation for non-material damage suffered;

—

order the European Parliament to pay to Steeve Briois the sum of EUR 5000 in respect of recoverable expenses;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all costs in the proceedings.

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’), inasmuch as the statement of Mr Briois that gave rise to criminal proceedings in his Member State of origin is an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties within the meaning of that provision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol, in that the Parliament misconstrued both the spirit and the letter of that provision by adopting the decision to waive Mr Briois’s immunity and thus rendered that decision invalid.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

In the first place, the applicant submits that the Parliament infringed the principle of equality by treating him differently from other Members of the European Parliament in situations that were at least comparable, if not identical, and consequently the Parliament also infringed the principle of sound administration, which establishes an obligation for the competent institution to assess carefully and impartially all the relevant considerations in the case in question.

In the second place, the applicant claims that there is a body of evidence allowing a clear case of fumus persecutionis against him to be established.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the rights of the applicant and the principle that the parties should be heard were not sufficiently guaranteed by the exchange of arguments before the Legal Affairs Committee. The applicant therefore submits that the fact that he was not invited to set out his views at a plenary session on the waiver of his immunity was not only contrary to the general principles of law but also at variance with common sense and the majority of parliamentary practices.