Ukip-vs-EUkip

We aim to inform YOU & provide an archive re: Ukip to TRY to make it fit for purpose

Archive for the ‘Bruno WATERFIELD’ Category

#Ukip MEP #Jane_Collins Runs to #EU_Courts for Help & Rightly Loses On All Counts! …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 01/02/2018

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 .
#Ukip MEP #Jane_Collins Runs to #EU_Courts for Help & Rightly Loses On All Counts! …
 .
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

 

Hi,

COLLINS, Jane 01

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

1 February 2018 (*)

(Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision not to defend the privileges and immunities — Action manifestly inadmissible — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

In Case T‑919/16,

Jane Maria Collins, residing in Hotham (United Kingdom), represented by I. Anderson, solicitor,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by S. Alonso de León and M. Dean, acting as Agents,

defendant,

concerning, first, an action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 25 October 2016 not to defend the immunity and privileges of the applicant, secondly, an action under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly incurred as a result of that decision and, thirdly, a request that the General Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of H. Kanninen, President, L. Calvo-Sotelo Ibáñez-Martín (Rapporteur) and I. Reine, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

 Background to the dispute

1        In the elections held on 25 May 2014, the applicant, Ms Jane Maria Collins, was elected to the European Parliament on the list of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).

2        On 26 September 2014, the applicant made a speech at a UKIP conference in the constituency of Yorkshire and Humber (United Kingdom). On that occasion, she mentioned a child sexual abuse scandal in the area of Rotherham (United Kingdom), which is part of that constituency, and stated that she was convinced that three members of the Labour party who were elected from that constituency to the Parliament of the United Kingdom ‘knew many of the details of what was happening’. She further stated that, by failing to take action, the persons who were aware of the abuse in question had helped and encouraged the perpetrators and were just as guilty (‘the statements at issue’).

3        On 5 December 2014, before the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) (United Kingdom), the three MPs in question brought a civil action against the applicant, seeking, on the one hand, damages for libel and slander and, on the other, an injunction restraining the applicant from repeating the statements at issue.

4        On 3 May 2016, the applicant made a request to the European Parliament, on the basis of Article 7 of its Rules of Procedure, for the defence, in the proceedings referred to above, of her privileges and immunities as enshrined in Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266; ‘the protocol’).

5        On 17 May 2016, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales) suspended the proceedings after having been informed, by the European Parliament, of the Applicant’s request for the defence of her privileges and immunities.

6        By decision of 25 October 2016, the European Parliament decided not to defend the privileges and immunity of the applicant (‘the contested decision’). The decision is reasoned as follows:

‘whereas … the request concerns the defence of the freedom of Members of the European Parliament, under Article 8 of the Protocol, from any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties;

whereas this part of the request relates to the fact that [the applicant] is subject to a civil claim in the United Kingdom for damages, including aggravated damages, for alleged libel and slander, as well as to a claim for an injunction against her to desist from repeating the [statements at issue];

whereas the claim of libel and slander concerns accusations which [the applicant] made at a party conference;

whereas the parliamentary immunity conferred by Article 8 of the Protocol applies to opinions expressed by Members of the European Parliament only in the performance of their duties;

whereas statements made by Members of the European Parliament outside the precincts of the European Parliament are considered to be made in the performance of their duties only if they amount to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties …;

whereas, however, there is no direct [and] obvious connection between the [statements at issue] and [the applicant]’s duties as a Member of the European Parliament, as they do not relate to her activity as a Member of the European Parliament or to the policies of the European Union, and were made in the context of national political debate;

whereas the [statements at issue] are, therefore, not covered by Article 8 of the Protocol.’

7        On 27 October 2016, a journalist of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) published an article on the BBC website setting out the background and political context of the case, the scope of the contested decision, as well as comments from a Member of the European Parliament on the matter. In its comments, the MEP in question stated that there had been, within the European Parliament, some raised eyebrows as to what he described as the apparent hypocrisy of a member of a party that wants to dismantle all European Union institutions apparently trying to hide behind one of them to avoid the decision of a court of the United Kingdom.

 Procedure and forms of order sought

8        By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 December 2016, the applicant brought the present action.

9        By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 July 2017, the Parliament raised a plea of inadmissibility under Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. The applicant lodged its observations on that objection on 21 August 2017.

10      The applicant claims that the Court should:

–        annul the contested decision;

–        decide on her request for the defence of her immunity and privileges;

–        order the Parliament to pay her compensation for the damage suffered, in the amount of EUR 10 000 for non-material damage and in the amount of EUR 25 000 for material damage;

–        order the Parliament to pay the costs.

11      The Parliament contends that the Court should:

–        dismiss the action as inadmissible;

–        in the alternative, in the event that the plea of inadmissibility is not upheld or is reserved for the final judgment, prescribe new time-limits to enable the Parliament to submit its defence, pursuant to Article 130(8) of the Rules of Procedure;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

 Law

12      Pursuant to Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may, if the defendant so requests, rule on the question of admissibility or lack of competence without considering the merits of the case. Furthermore, under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where it is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

13      In the present case, the Tribunal considers that there is sufficient information before it and has decided, pursuant to those provisions, to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

 The claim for annulment

 Arguments of the parties

14      The European Parliament submits that the contested decision did not bring about a distinct change in the applicant’s legal situation and that it is therefore not a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought. The purpose of the request for the defence of parliamentary immunity was not the adoption of a measure producing binding legal effects; a decision taken on the basis of such a request merely constitutes an opinion. Consequently, the Parliament took the view that the claims for annulment must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

15      The applicant states, first, that in her action she alleges infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), that the breach of those provisions had brought about a distinct change in her legal situation, and that that breach gave her a right of action before the General Court. On the one hand, the contested decision was intended to produce legal effects and that had been the case in practice, inasmuch as the infringement of the applicant’s right to be heard fairly and impartially caused her damage. On the other, if the contested decision were not subject to challenge before the Court, the Parliament could act without having to comply with the above provisions.

16      Secondly, the case-law is not unambiguous. In its judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579), the Court held that the decision of the Parliament not to defend the immunity of one of its Members constituted an opinion which was not binding on national courts. In its objection of inadmissibility, the Parliament inferred from the order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek (T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403), that that case-law was well established. However, the case which gave rise to that order concerned a financial penalty imposed by the institution on one of its members. Moreover, in its judgment of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament (T‑345/05, EU:T:2008:440), the General Court held that a decision of Parliament lifting the immunity of one of its members was a measure which could be the subject of an action for annulment.

17      Thirdly, although the judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 32), states that the protocol does not confer on the Parliament the power to determine, in cases of legal proceedings against one of its Members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by him, whether the conditions for applying that immunity are met, the fact remains that the Parliament did, in the present case, act as the competent authority in that regard. In those circumstances, the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales) may take the view that it is not for it to examine itself whether the statements at issue are covered by the immunity provided for in Article 8 of the Protocol. The contested decision thus has an impact on the proceedings before that court.

18      Fourthly, it is apparent from Rule 7(5) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure that a decision of the Parliament not to defend the immunity of one of its members is subject to appeal before the General Court.

 Findings of the Court

19      According to settled case-law, an institution’s reply to a request addressed to it does not necessarily constitute a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, thus opening the way for the addressee of that reply to bring an action for its annulment. In addition, it has consistently been held that only a measure the legal effects of which are binding on and capable of affecting the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 263 TFEU. It follows that the rejection by an institution of a request addressed to it does not constitute a measure against which an action for annulment may be brought where that request did not lead to the adoption, by that institution, of a measure producing binding legal effects (see order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek, T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

20      As regards, more particularly, a request for the defence of parliamentary immunity, it must be borne in mind that Article 8 of the Protocol provides that ‘Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties’. Article 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that any request addressed to the President of the Parliament by a Member of the Parliament to defend his immunity and privileges is to be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible. Furthermore, it is apparent from a reading of Article 9(8) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 9(9) of those rules that the discussions before the Parliament concern only the reasons for and against defence of immunity or a privilege. Finally, it is stated in Article 9(10) of those rules that the competent authority of the Member State concerned, to which Parliament’s decision is communicated, is invited to inform it of any developments and judicial rulings issued in the proceedings in question.

21      In a similar context, the Court held, in its judgments of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 39) and of 6 September 2011, Patriciello (C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543, paragraph 39) that, even where criminal proceedings have been brought against a Member before a national court, a decision to defend immunity, adopted by the Parliament on the basis of the Rules of Procedure following a request from the Member concerned, constitutes only an opinion which does not have binding effect with regard to national judicial authorities. It necessarily follows that a decision rejecting a request for the adoption of such a decision does not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects and cannot be the subject of an action for annulment (order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek, T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403, paragraph 28).

22      The fact that no action may be brought against the contested decision is not called into question by the arguments put forward by the applicant in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility.

23      First, as regards the applicant’s argument that the contested decision was intended to go beyond the mere expression of an opinion and to produce legal effects vis-à-vis the national judicial authorities, it should be recalled that in order to determine whether an act is capable of having legal effects and, therefore, whether an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU can be brought against it, it is necessary to examine its wording and context, its substance and the intention of its author (see order of 12 October 2016, Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission, T‑41/16, not published, EU:T:2016:613, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

24      However, although, in the contested decision, the Parliament took the view that ‘there was no direct [and] obvious connection between the [statements at issue] and [the applicant]’s duties as a Member of the European Parliament’ and that ‘the [statements at issue] [were], therefore, not covered by Article 8 of the Protocol’, the Parliament thus confined itself to replying to the application submitted to it by the applicant for the defence of her immunity and privileges.

25      Secondly, while Article 7(5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a decision not to defend the privileges and immunities of an MEP has been taken, that MEP may make a request for reconsideration unless an action has been brought against the decision under Article 263 TFEU. However, those rules are an act of internal organisation and cannot grant powers to the Parliament which are not expressly acknowledged by a legislative measure, in this case by the protocol (judgment of 21 October 2008, Marra, C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579, paragraph 38).

26      Thirdly, the applicant’s claim that the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales) may consider itself bound by the contested decision is purely speculative. Since the contested decision is merely an opinion, the national court is entitled to depart from it (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543, paragraph 40).

27      Fourthly, as regards the applicant’s argument alleging infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the ECHR which she claims to have suffered, it must be pointed out that it amounts, in actual fact, to inferring that the contested decision is an act adversely affecting a person on the basis of its alleged illegality. In so doing, the applicant conflates the separate issues of the admissibility and the merits of the claim for annulment, whereas the existence of possible unlawful acts does not fall within the scope of the examination of the admissibility of the action for annulment, but of its merits (see judgment of 20 May 2010, Commission v Violetti and Others, T‑261/09 P, EU:T:2010:215, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the alleged infringement of Articles 6 and 11 of the ECHR, moreover not formally incorporated into EU law (judgments of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 44, and of 18 July 2013, Schindler Holding and Others v Commission, C‑501/11 P, EU:C:2013:522, paragraph 32), is not sufficient to render admissible an action for annulment against an act which does not produce binding legal effects and does not therefore affect the interests of an applicant, by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 January 2003, Philip Morris International v Commission, T‑377/00, T‑379/00, T‑380/00, T‑260/01 and T‑272/01, EU:T:2003:6, paragraph 87). In any event, the alleged infringement could, at most, be linked to the conduct of Parliament lacking the features of a decision. In that case, the applicant’s right to effective judicial protection is ensured by the possibility of bringing an action for damages conferred on her by Article 268 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 January 2016, SACBO v Commission and INEA, C‑281/14 P, not published, EU:C:2016:46, paragraph 47, and of 20 May 2010, Commission v Violetti and Others, T‑261/09 P, EU:T:2010:215, paragraph 59), which the applicant moreover did in her third head of claim (see paragraph 30 et seq. below).

28      Fifthly, the case-law is not inconsistent, contrary to what the applicant claims. First of all, while paragraph 31 of the judgment of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament (T‑345/05, EU:T:2008:440) accepted that the contested decision constituted a measure against which an action for annulment could be brought, it related to a Parliament decision waiving the immunity of one of its Members in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 10 of the protocol, so as to make it possible to bring criminal proceedings against that Member, and not a decision finding that there were no grounds for defending the immunity of an MEP provided for in Article 8 of that protocol. Subsequently, although the order of 5 September 2012, Farage v Parliament and Buzek (T‑564/11, not published, EU:T:2012:403), did relate to an action brought against a financial penalty imposed by the institution on one of its members, the Court also ruled, in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its order, on the admissibility of the action in so far as it was also directed against a decision refusing to defend the immunity of the Member concerned. On that occasion, the Court held, in line with the judgments of 21 October 2008, Marra (C‑200/07 and C‑201/07, EU:C:2008:579), and of 6 September 2011, Patriciello (C‑163/10, EU:C:2011:543), that such a decision did not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects capable of being the subject of an action for annulment.

29      It follows from the foregoing that it is necessary to uphold the plea of inadmissibility and to dismiss the claim for annulment of the contested decision as manifestly inadmissible.

 The claim that the Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant

30      The Parliament submits that the General Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim that it should itself rule on the request for the defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant, since it is not for the Court to issue directions to the institutions or to substitute itself for them.

31      The applicant did not respond to that plea of inadmissibility.

32      According to settled case-law, the General Court is not entitled, in the context of a review of legality on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, to issue directions to the institutions or to assume the role assigned to them. That limitation of the scope of judicial review applies to all types of contentious matters that might be brought before the Court (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 July 2001, Mattila v Council and Commission, T‑204/99, EU:T:2001:190, paragraph 26; of 8 October 2008, Agrar-Invest-Tatschl v Commission, T‑51/07, EU:T:2008:420, paragraphs 27 and 28; and of 17 December 2010, EWRIA and Others v Commission, T‑369/08, EU:T:2010:549, paragraph 45), and thus also in the field of immunity and privileges granted to Members (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 June 2017, Bay v Parliament, T‑302/16, EU:T:2017:390, paragraph 45).

33      In the light of the foregoing, the claim that the Court should rule on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of the applicant must be rejected on the grounds of manifest lack of jurisdiction.

 The claim that the Court should order the Parliament to pay compensation to the applicant for the damage allegedly suffered by it

34      The Parliament submits that, in so far as the claim for annulment is manifestly inadmissible, the same applies to the claim for compensation.

35      It should be borne in mind that the action for compensation based on the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU is an autonomous form of action in the system of remedies available in EU law, so that the fact that an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for damages inadmissible (order of 13 January 2014, Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission, T‑134/12, EU:T:2014:31, paragraph 59).

36      Admittedly, where an action for damages is actually aimed at securing the withdrawal of an individual decision addressed to the applicant which has become definitive — so that it has the same purpose and the same effect as an action for annulment — that action for damages might be regarded as an abuse of process; the burden of proving such an abuse of process lies on the party pleading it (see order of 13 January 2014, Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission, T‑134/12, EU:T:2014:31, paragraph 60).

37      However, in the present case, the Parliament does not allege, let alone prove, that the applicant’s claims for compensation have the same purpose and the same effect as her claim for annulment, which was deemed inadmissible in paragraph 29 above.

38      The Parliament’s plea of inadmissibility in respect of the claim for damages must therefore be rejected.

39      It should nevertheless be pointed out, ex officio, that the claim in question does not meet part of the requirements laid down by Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure.

40      In order to meet the requirements of that provision, any application must state the subject matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of law and fact relied on are stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. More specifically, in order to satisfy those requirements, the claims relating to compensation for the damage allegedly caused by a European Union institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution may be identified, the reasons why it considers that a causal link exists between that conduct and the damage which it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage (see order of 14 July 2016, Alcimos Consulting v ECB, T‑368/15, not published, EU:T:2016:438, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).

41      The applicant claims, first, that, ‘in refusing to defend the immunity of the Applicant under Article 8 of the Protocol, the Parliament … [has] exposed the Applicant to substantial aggravated damages in the national courts for causing proceedings to be stayed under the principle of sincere cooperation in order for the request to the Parliament to be heard’.

42      That finding does not, however, make it possible to identify with the degree of clarity and precision required by Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure either the nature of the damage allegedly suffered, or the extent or the existence of a sufficiently direct causal link between the alleged unlawful acts and the alleged damage. Consequently, that claim is manifestly inadmissible.

43      As regards the substance of the claim, it is settled case-law that in order for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU for unlawful conduct on the part of its institutions, a number of conditions must be satisfied: the institutions’ conduct must be unlawful; actual damage must have been suffered; and there must be a causal link between the conduct and the damage pleaded. Since those three conditions are cumulative, the absence of any one of them is sufficient for an action for damages to be dismissed (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T‑346/11 and T‑347/11, EU:T:2013:23, paragraphs 210 and 211 and the case-law cited, and of 15 January 2015, Ziegler and Ziegler Relocation v Commission, T‑539/12 and T‑150/13, not published, EU:T:2015:15, paragraphs 59 and 60).

44      With regard more specifically to the condition relating to the existence of a causal link, it is met where there is a direct link of cause and effect between the fault committed by the institution concerned and the alleged damage, the existence of which the applicant must prove. In other words, the European Union can be held liable only for damage which is a sufficiently direct consequence of the wrongful act of the institution concerned, that is to say, the conduct must be the determining cause of the harm. By contrast, it is not for the Union to make good every harmful consequence, even a remote one, of the conduct of its institutions (judgments of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T‑346/11 and T‑347/11, EU:T:2013:23, paragraph 222, and of 16 December 2015, Chart v EEAS, T‑138/14, EU:T:2015:981, paragraph 53).

45      It must be observed in that regard that, even assuming the admissibility of the statement in question referring to the stay of proceedings granted by the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales), the damage resulting from such a stay of proceedings is directly caused by the choice, made freely by the applicant, to ask the Parliament to defend her privileges and immunities.

46      In its application, the applicant maintains, secondly, that the comment on the case by an MEP, reproduced in the article of 27 October 2016 published by a BBC journalist, involves an assessment that is damaging to her reputation and which is the direct consequence of the contested decision.

47      However, it is clear from the wording of the contested decision, as reproduced in paragraph 6 above, that, in that decision, the Parliament merely recalled briefly the background to the case and the scope of Article 8 of the Protocol, before concluding that, in its view, the statements at issue had no connection with the applicant’s activity as a Member of the Parliament or with the policies of the European Union. The contested decision is drafted in neutral terms and does not reflect any opinion unfavourable to the applicant, especially with regard to the potentially libellous or defamatory nature of the statements at issue. Furthermore, under Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, Parliament’s debates are open to the public, and the texts it adopts are also made public pursuant to Article 116 of those rules. Consequently, the applicant could not have been unaware, in her capacity as MEP, that the request that she had freely chosen to introduce for the defence of her immunity and privileges would lead to the adoption by the Parliament of a decision which would be made public.

48      In those circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there is a direct link of cause and effect between the alleged illegalities committed by the Parliament at the time of the adoption of the contested decision and the alleged damage to the applicant’s reputation, since such damage could ensue, by definition, only from the press article drafted by a journalist.

49      In its application, the applicant alleges, thirdly, that she suffered financial loss as a result of the fact that, in order to bring the present action before the Court, she was obliged to pay a lawyer.

50      However, it is settled case-law that the expenses incurred by the parties for the purposes of legal proceedings before a court of the European Union are not material damage but costs (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 June 1999, Commission v Montorio, C‑334/97, EU:C:1999:290, paragraph 54, and order of 17 February 2012, Dagher v Council, T‑218/11, not published, EU:T:2012:82, paragraph 39).

51      In the light of the foregoing, it must be held that the applicant’s claims for compensation are in part manifestly inadmissible, and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

52      Consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, in part as it is manifestly inadmissible, in part as it manifestly falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and in part as it is manifestly unfounded.

 Costs

53      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, and the Parliament has applied for costs, she must be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      The action is dismissed.

2.      Jane Maria Collins is ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.

Luxembourg, 1 February 2018.

E. Coulon
 
H. Kanninen
Registrar

To view the original of this Judgement
Against Jane Collins Ukip MEP CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

 

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Bruno WATERFIELD, Collins,, EU, EUkip, GL-W, GLW, Greg Lance - Watkins, Greg_L-W., Jane COLLINS, Libel, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#0665* – UKIP – Will They Be Visible @ Their Own Funeral?

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 29/09/2011

#0665* – UKIP – Will They Be Visible @ Their Own Funeral?

 Please Be Sure To 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.  
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

&

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  
.
UKIP – Will They Be Visible @ Their Own Funeral?!
One wonders as they have had absolutely no impact on politics IN BRitain nor to Leave-The-EU!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,

another contribution from a forum to which I post regularly:

UKIP – Will They Be Visible @ Their Own Funeral?

Hi,

having listened to the communistesque State of The Union speech of the odious Jose Manuel Barroso in drag he would be so very like Polly Toynbe – far from attractive and like mindedly batty as a box of frogs.

I believe we can safely say that had Arnold Toynbee and the Fabian movement been killed off the world would in many ways be a better place.

I know that had that happened to the Communist student leader in Portugal the same would be true but as to whether his vile and arcane concepts are hereditary I can not say.

What is true is that many of Nigel Farage’s faults would seem to be hereditary on his father Guy’s side – unreliable, gambler, womaniser and drunk – so very similar and no doubt where Farage inheritted his insecurity and scheming manner as an amoral self serving insecure loner.

That UKIP has achieved absolutely nothing in moving these United Kingdoms one inch towards the aim of Leave-The-EU in 20 years is indisputable as even now out of 19,500 available seats UKIP only has less than 30 and no one of any merit or stature in British politics.

I have seen no broadcast by eMail, radio or TV exposing the comments of the idiot Barosso – yet we see Farage’s chum who has even gone so far as to deliberately lie on Farage’s account in the past, Peter Oborne, on Newsnight vigerously promoting his latest pamphlet through The Institute for Policy Studies – when in 20 years UKIP has never even published a pamphlet, unless you count Batten’s rehash of the Government Pink Book.

Where was UKIP holding forth on the Barroso State of the Union bid to destroy London as a financial center?

In fact consider these 3 titles alone:
EC president Barroso urges deeper economic integration
September 28 2011 | Bruno Waterfield | Finance

The EU faces the “biggest crisis in its history” as it struggles to hold the eurozone together amid the sovereign debt crisis, Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president has admitted.

MEPs to spend £26m on bigger offices… to be used one day a week …
September 27 2011 | Bruno Waterfield | News

MEPs are planning to spend £26million on bigger offices that will only be used an average of one day a week in the EU assembly’s Strasbourg seat.

David Cameron ‘betrayed’ MEPs on Strasbourg
September 26 2011 | Bruno Waterfield | News

Senior Tories have accused David Cameron of caving in to Foreign Office pressure to appease the French by abandoning a key Coalition promise to reform the EU.

Whilst you are in contemplative mood you may care to go through this check list at:
CLICK HERE
& tick off ANY where UKIP brought the issues to the public conscience when they pertained to the simple concept of Leave-The-EU

Do not forget howmany £Millions have been garnered from the public purse and also how much the public have been defrauded by UKIP MEPs.

Since when was stealing £30,000+ in fiddled expenses and embezelling it to buy a car and over 1,000 bottles of wine ‘using the devils money to do gods work’ as Stuart Agnew so colourfully and duplicitously put it!

UKIP leadership to a man are the dregs of politics with an abysmal record on fraud, bad publicity, self enrichment, childish stunts and corruption even backing the support of Anders Breivick and now supporting The True Finns with a comment about Greek protesters being crushed by tanks and a Military Junta!

As a supporter of UKIP I am pleased to say I have not succumbed to their lack of ethics and their moral standards of the gutter, which their leadership bring to politics – nor of course would I claim they were the only ones to do so, but the difference is they lied to ME and let ME down, The LibLabCon did not as I knew they were trash and they made no effort to convince me otherwise.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

Clearly economists at the hands of these rascalls we have as politicians, in their efforts to solve the economic problems are like poker pl;ayers, who when matched against the cards can be expected to win on a fair and equitable table based on their skills.

Here we have the economists (poker players) trying to double guess which cards the dealer and his cronies (the politicians) have removed from the decks!

There is absolutely no doubt that Greece will and in fact has defaulted on its debts – let us see just how crass the economic solution devised by the corrupt politicians of The EU will be so that these idiots can lie to eachother and the public using false argument and inventive language in the hope of duping the peoples they are expressly trying to con – THE PUBLIC!

It is hard to find any informed person who holds politicians and their parasites feeding on the corpse of The EU in any greater regard than petty thieves at best and paedophiles with absolutely no consideration, regard or empathy for their victims as one moves closer to the center of The EU and those who still support it.
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62
of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com 
  Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.  
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

&

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Barroso, Bruno WATERFIELD, FABIANS the, Institute for Policy Studies, Nigel FARAGE MEP EFD Leader, Stuart AGNEW EFD + NFU MEP, TOYNBEE, UKIP | Leave a Comment »

#0459* – UKIP – The Morning After The Night Before!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 05/05/2011

#0459* – UKIP – The Morning After The Night Before!
.
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 
.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  
.
UKIP – The Morning After The Night Before!

They may even get a superannuated regional Councillor in Wales!

They could move from 14 elected Councillors to as high as 20!!!!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

With around 9,000 seats up for election today and with UKIP fielding about 1,200 candidates I predict UKIP will NOT break the magic 30 seats elected.

AND SO:

as the electioneering is now over and the desperate job of talking up the outcome arrives for UKIP’s unprofessional leadership team and and the parasites around them seeking preferment and crumbs from the troughs on the gravy train will all be busy crowing atop their dung heap whilst Farage talks up the net gain (which it would have been hard not to achieve!)

Let us remember UKIP entered this election period with 14 or 16 elected seats (it takes more effort to pin down the exact figure and as it is dismally low it is largely obfuscated by UKIP).

They started out with 13 MEPs but 3 have resigned so far from the extremist group The Pan EU Political EFD Group which Farage set up off his own bat without democratic consent to support racist, xenophobic, pro EU membership, anti Jewish, violently anti homosexual policies based on a REFORM policy.

The fractures apeared within a very short space of time with Trevor Colman speaking out and ‘claiming’ he would not go along with it almost immediately and stating he would leave in the September as did Nikki Sinclaire.

Out of concern for UKIP neither did leave as with an election upcoming Farage took the utterly selfish step of abandoning the party for his personal glory, forcing a leadership election. It is also claimed Farage had to go as the party had so squandered its money on hiring family and friends and half wit schemes to distract from the fact that almost no money was coming in and the MEP donations of any size were only being contributed in self interest and not to the central party – the party after crass mismanagement and catastrophic leadership with serial court cases lost was all but broke.

With an election up coming and no man of stature funding the party, even the bemused booky Bowne was seemingly a spent force his reputation on a low ebb and his property investments down it is said. Thus we hear Stuart Wheeler made it clear he would donate but not with Farage anywhere near the money or as leader.

Impressed with the title and the efforts of the outgoing leader on his behalf the duplicitous and underhand Malcolm Lord Pearson was put in as Wheeler/Farage’s puppet. Even then Stuart Wheeler was so disillusioned he had one of his ‘Crises of Confidence’ as with David Cameron, that his share income was dropping like a brick and he had more than halved the fortune he made gambling – he wrote a final cheque and quit UKIP to stand against them with a rather silly scheme forming a new party – who talked him into that honourable but idiotic idea so late must have hoped for income and a job!

UKIP’s results in the general election were risible in every single constituency in which they stood.

By this time Sinclaire having had detailed discussions with Pearson prior to Christmas and his assurance that her principles would be respected and her position in UKIP would be unaffected when she left The sordid EFD Group. At this Nigel Farage had one of his imature and unedifying hissy fits and yet again threatened to leave UKIP if Nikki Sinclaire remained. Pearson terrified at the thought of being left alone with this bag of vipers capitulated and reneged on his undertakings to Nikki Sinclaire – I for one was not surprised he is after all an Old Etonian!

Sinclaire was manouvered against, propagandised against, lied about and when her regional committee voted  6 to one in har favour they were ignored and Farage engineered her being removed and her offices robbed on the instructions of the discreditted and useless Christopher Gill. The implications for Mike Nattrass from whom she rented the offices were horrendous as his employee had carried out the robbery and rapidly the goods stolen were returned and profuse apologies accepted by Sinclaire.

The folder of evidence in Sinclaire’s defence put before the NEC was impressive but in normal style the mostly useless boot likers and yes men on UKIP’s NEC acted without any ethics, morality or sense of justice and obeyed their inner voice in the form of Farage’s hit squad having seen the way he and Croucher had pumped up The BNP to create their own Night of The Reichstag Tower and a subsequent Crystal Nacht removing those of probity who called the NEC to account.

More low life placemen were of course readily available and Sinclaire although remaining a member of UKIP was forced to cease being a UKIP MEP or using UKIP logos or badging – She was thus forced to enter the election in opposition to EU membership in her own capacity.

Her position was untennable – a professional politician being courted by rival parties, she again took the only rational and ethical stand and declined offers of standing for national parties and stood on purely local issues highlighting EU influence, supporting and standing for the nascent Residents association SAMRA.

There was even an outside danger based on local recognition and work done that had Sinclaire been permitted to stand for UKIP she just might have unseated Caroline Spelman and could with a fair wind and help have been UKIP’s first MP – there was no one else in UKIP who stood a prayer! Standing for SAMRA obviously she was never likely to get many votes but it legitimised her campaigning against EU membership.

So what of the outcome in todays vote?

I incline to the opinion, in view of the well earned unpopularity of Nick Clegg Chris Hoohne and Vincent Cable that the Lib.Dims will take a bath.

The Labour pro EU movement will make big gains as it reclaims the Lib.Dim. disillusioned faction and there will be small gains for The Tories in the better informed wards where they realise that the cuts need to be a hell of a lot tougher if Britain is to survive the economic illiteracy and corruption of the 13 unlucky years of Labour misrule and the £4.8Trillion of debt they created in their self serving greed.

IF the Snivil Cervice and Government jobs are not halved Britain WILL NOT survive.

IF the Kleptocratic QUANGOcracy feeding like maggots on The NHS are not erradicated THERE WILL BE NO FUNCTIONING NHS within 5 years. Consider Wales where £1Billion of NHS money has been squandered on fashionable projects aggrandising inadequates like rebadging NHS Gwent and creating ever more hugely over paid management structures whilst basic equipment needs and cleaning go by the board!

OK in this atmosphere I predict net gains for UKIP that may even bring them up to 30 in elected office for the first time ever – that leaves a mere19,470/2 to go to be in a majority!!!

 SO WHAT NOW FOR UKIP:

May I suggest that whilst they take stock, root out the parasites, maggots and hangers on – ensure they haven’t a single staff member earning more than £30K and that each MEP donates not less than £40K a year from their salary to the central party and all accounts are presented in detail openly to the full NEC and both authorised and signed off by each member.

– the party would do well to: 

Read the article below by Bruno Waterfield on 20-Apr-2011

Then structure a plan to get UKIP activists NOT TO STOP their efforts of the last week or two in the elections but to continue to ensure EVERY household in Britain knows not less than 5 of the facts Bruno Waterfield has highlighted and whilst at it a simple flier showing how Britain pays £50M a day to fund membership of The EU and £120M a day in interest on the borrowings of 13 unlucky years of Labour dishonesty and incompetence.

Those who wish to act positively can go to CLICK HERE and read up on the facts before downloading a form and actively campaigning for signatures and supporters.

The plight of the discreditted UKIP will come later!

This is just an infill movement to give the remaining Party some sort of aim to carry it forward until it is reformed and can attract a leader of both stature and probity, competence and charisma, professionalism and authority thus liberating Farage to do what he does best ‘Be A Performer’.

If UKIP fails to act it will continue to bump along enriching a few whilst disapointing many and betraying more.

EU spending in numbers

Brussels has demanded that British taxpayers stump up more than £600million in extra contributions to the European Union next year to meet a proposed £5.5billion increase. Here is a breakdown of the EU’s spending.

a one euro coin above the flag for the United Kingdom

Photo: REUTERS

£94billion
The nine tenths of the EU’s budget in 2009 that was “materially affected” by irregularities, projects that included the spending of more than £350,000 “improving the lifestyle and living standard of dogs” in Hungary.
£2billion
The annual cost of paying pensions to Eurocrats by 2040, British taxpayers will end up paying £350million of the total. 

£136million

The amount British taxpayers paid for EU pensions in 2010, giving the average retired Eurocrat an income of almost £60,000. 
1,023
£328,000
The annual pay and perks package for Baroness Ashton, the EU foreign minister and highest paid female politician in the world 
2,558
The number of senior EU officials, earning £185,000 a year, who were entitled to three months time off work on full pay last year. 
£67million
The amount that the European Parliament’s 736 MEPs can collectively claim this year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure. 
£150million
The annual cost of moving the entire EU parliament hundreds of miles from Brussels to Strasbourg for a plenary sitting once a month as a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation. 
£90million
The European House of History, to be built by 2014 by MEPs, despite a continuing argument over fundamental historical event, such as what happened during the Second World War. 
£8million
The annual cost of EuroparlTV, a television channel, which highlights the work of MEPs, and has only 830 daily viewers, less than 10 per cent of the 9,000 people working in the parliament every day.
£410,000
Cash to train teenagers in Burkina Faso and Mali, two of the world’s poorest countries, in “therapeutic dancing” because Africans find that “expression of feelings through the spoken word is often difficult and complicated”.
£180,000
The sum paid on the EU’s “project of generosity” set up to “spread the movement of reaching out and sharing”. 
£162,000

The funding went to the London-based Flying Gorillas troupe, whose acts includes the “brilliant smelly foot dance”.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62

Posted in Bruno WATERFIELD, Council Election Day, Mike NATRASS MEP, Nigel FARAGE MEP, Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP, Stuart WHEELER, Trevor COLMAN MEP, UKIP | Leave a Comment »

#0268* – UKIP / EFD ATTEMPT TO DENIGRATE Maarten ENGWIRDA

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 30/01/2011

#0268* – UKIP / EFD ATTEMPT TO DENIGRATE Maarten ENGWIRDA!
.
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 
.
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  
.
UKIP / EFD ATTEMPT TO DENIGRATE The WHISTLE BLOWER Maarten ENGWIRDA by LIKEN HIM TO THE FRAUD Marta ANDREASEN!!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

I noted the attempt to promote The EFD by Marta Andreasen being alluded to on a Forum on the internet as follows:

A dutch auditor has followed in the footsteps of UKIP’s Martha Andreason in Blowing the whistle on EU finances.Maarten Engwirda has blown the lid off the EU,s claims of transparency.
CLICK HERE 

I felt it apposite to correct the illusion Marta Andreasen and the racist, xenophobic and anti Jewish EFD Group of which UKIP elected MEPs are members were clearly managing to dupe the more gullible into believing!

Hi,

I believe you will find these articles:
CLICK HERE
rather more informative and considerably more accurate!

Bruno Waterfield’s article:
CLICK HERE

Sadly comment on the issue by EFD members much demeans the issue as they are largely a claque of xenophobic, anti Jewish racists and to quote the utter fraud Marta Andreasen as some kind of valid individual utterly undermines the matter she was, as you are no doubt aware, one of the many bean counters in the EU but totally failed to acquit her duty in producing year end figured within the EU Transport Ministry where she was hired (based on her oen false CV which failed to point out she was suspended for irregularities with some wiff of racism by The OECD).

Her job was to take the department accounts and present them showing where they could be fiddled and present suggestions to The EU Commission as to how the loopholes could be sealed and a better more watertight accounts procedure implimented.

She failed totally to perform her job and after the third deadline had passed she was moved sideways to another post.

It was not until AFTER she had lost her Court Case that she reinvented herself as some sort of whistle blower – A PACK OF LIES as her trial showed, do read the Judge’s Judgement summary CLICK HERE

If you wish to build an understanding of the endemic fraud and corruption within The EU may I suggest you read:
Maarten Engwirda’s articles and comments without the corrupt and dishonest spin of UKIP & The EFD.

‘The Rotten Heart of EUrope‘ by Bernard Connolly (Head of The EU Commission unit responsible for EMS & monetary policy)

‘The Great Deception’ and ‘The Castle of Lies‘ both by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North

‘The Economics of EUropean Integration’ Willem Molle

‘Vigilance – A defence of British Libert’ by Ashley Mote

It is the enemy within we should most fear for the dangers and dishonesty were made clear, see:
CLICK HERE
Don’t Say You Were Not Warned! Enoch POWELL WARNED US ALL!

Or consider the whistleblowing of Paul von Buitenen who brought the commission down in 1998 who did considerable work with Christopher Story and Ashley Mote at a later stage.

Similarly you may care to follow the case of Hans Martin Tillack as something of a whistle blower! CLICK HERE

I am surprised it took you so long to put out the EFD spin and the attempt by the fraud, fake and untrustworthy liar Marta Andreasen to try to be associated with whistle blowing – You should read her ‘Novella’!

I trust this helps.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

YOU may also wish to follow the corruption in The EU Finances from The Report of The Court of Auditors to The EU at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/europe/newsid_9159000/9159048.stm

Court of Auditors report

The way in which the EU spends its budget has been criticised by the Court of Auditors for the 16th year in a row.
Presenting his annual report to the European Parliament on 11 November 2010, the president of the Court Vitor Caldeira said there were “material levels of error”, particular in the fields of agriculture and the cohesion funds.
The European Court of Auditors was established in 1975, and audits the accounts of EU institutions.
In its most recent report it has found that over a third of the €35.5bn allocated by the EU for regional funding was affected by errors, either unintentional or possibly fraud.
The Audit and Anti-Fraud Commissioner Algirdas Semeta said the Commission would “follow up on all recommendations” but said the report was a “positive sign that efforts to improve budgetary control are having an impact”.
He pointed to the fact that the auditors found that 95% of payments were free from errors, however Polish conservative MEP Ryszard Czarnecki said voters would “focus on the remaining 5%”.

Strong criticism came from UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen, a former Chief Accountant at the European Commission, who said that if similar problems were revealed in the private sector, “the company would be closed down and the directors fired”.

It was unfortunate that the Spanish MEP Marta Andreasen of the EFD Group spoke to the subject as her testimony can not be held in ANY regard in view of her track record of dishonesty.

That Marta Andreasen still presents herself as at one time EU Chief Accountant when she was nothing of the sort – merely one of the huge number of EU bean counters shuffling paper and largely colluding in one of the largest frauds in the history of man.

Marta Andreasen was a ‘Chef’ and NOT a ‘Chief’ accountant, one of many.
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in Ashley MOTE MEP, Bernard CONNOLLEY, Bruno WATERFIELD, Christopher STORY, EFD, Enoch POWELL MP, Hans Martin TILLACK, Maarten ENGWIRDA, Marta ANDREASEN MEP, Paul van BUITENEN | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: