Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Archive for the ‘Libel’ 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 »

#0116* – UKIP & FARAGE – UNUSUAL FOR THE BBC TO RISK LIBEL

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 23/09/2010

#0116* – UKIP & FARAGE  – UNUSUAL FOR THE BBC TO  RISK LIBEL
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 & FARAGE  – UNUSUAL FOR THE BBC TO  RISK LIBEL!
But that it is false, inaccurate & defamatory is undeniable!

UKIP Nigel Farage – BBC Hard talk interview 2010 – Part 1 of 3

UK Independence party MEP Nigel Farage is interviewed March 2010 just before the UK General Election.

25 Responses to “UKIP Nigel Farage – BBC Hard talk interview 2010 – Part 1 of 3”


  1. Marleyites says:

    @mrbassman25 Even though I’m a lawyer, I didn’t go to college until I was almost 40, then I just paid attention to the technical aspects of business & law. Now I see that law education was bunk, bogus. But in grade school I didn’t pay much attention. I only went to high school 3 years & when I was there, again, I passed without paying attention. I’ve never watched-read-listened to main media. So I never got the full brainwashing. That’s why I’m asking – I really don’t understand mass-mind.


  2. mrbassman25 says:

    @mrbassman25
    all that said…. the Liberal democrats were voted into power along with conservatives… so people have atleast started switching votes.


  3. mrbassman25 says:

    @Marleyites
    i don’t think people care to be honest. This country has been bred to either be a Labour or a Conservative voter, Conservative for the rich, Labour for the poorer.
    People can’t get out of that mindset, it’s one or the other and usually it’s drummed into them from birth, just the same as over there too i guess.
    from what i’ve seen is that any publicity UKIP get… it’s usually bad. as with other parties…. though im sure most parties are just as corrupt and fake


  4. Marleyites says:

    @mrbassman25 Thanks for the response! Sounds like the same story as here … someone who would help the people, bring liberty & justice for all isn’t given airtime so people don’t really know about them, except what they hear taken out of context or misquoted. There’s enough about what they say that is so suspicious & nonsensical that you’d think people would go looking outside of mainstream for answers & solutions. Would they switch if they could see these vids?


  5. mrbassman25 says:

    @Marleyites
    UKIP don’t get much airtime or good press over here, people tend to think they are another racist BNP, as we all know Nigel rightly has issues with illegal immigration but it always gets taken out of context. I guess it’s just cause there are so many sheep over here too !!
    Although the last election saw Britain divided in order for a coalition government meaning two party’s are ment to run the country together! and that goes into a whole new story!!


  6. Marleyites says:

    @mrbassman25 I’ve always wondered why UK citizens don’t ALL just love this man & the UKIP party? From here in U.S., it looks like he’d be The Man to run your country. Do you have any insight as to what the problem is with voters in UK that they aren’t in favor of this UKIP + Farage?


  7. TIMsmithconnor says:

    @TrueBlueJMS We need him here. He’s much better than Obama


  8. TrueBlueJMS says:

    We need to kidnap Farage, ship him to the US, and run him for president!!!


  9. codownni says:

    The Brussels Broadcasting Corporation is a disgrace.
    Nigel farage always eats them up!


  10. PureJockPureBrit says:

    I noticed on a google link that the CBBC website is very much biased in favour of the EU. There is literally no argument put against it, and false hopes and lies inhabit the so called “benefits” that are shown to young viewers. This is what the apparently “politically neutral” BBC is showing our children. Only last century did extreme regimes do the same to young children – albeit in a far more obvious, provocative and far from subtle manner – yet the BBC do the same nonetheless! Have a look…


  11. PureJockPureBrit says:

    Nigel is precisely right. What will save us in this recession? Taxing a damaged nation making it even poorer? Or lowering taxis to encourage the rich to invest here and giving young businesses a better chance? I know which one I would choose…


  12. jimmypubeface23 says:

    i’m poor and i totally agree with what he’s saying.


  13. SuperSuperfan says:

    @DreadLaw2 Steven Sackur the interviewer does get millions of complaints but its from the left and the right, he was specifically criticized for interview of Noam Chomsky last year. He’s not biggoted in any way he will attack an person that goes on his show and makes them prove their convictions. In all the time I have watched the show I have never been able to truly figure out what his views actually are, in oneinterview he seems like a clear conservative and in another a crazy leftist.


  14. cornwallgeezer says:

    The interviewer is a Prick with a capital ‘P’.
    BBC impartial, bollocks!
    That’s because they accept lots of money from the EU!


  15. 32GaugeSlug says:

    You have to remember, UKIP is controlled opposition. It’s supposed to be there to look stupid. Mr Farage knows he will never win anything.


  16. mrbassman25 says:

    @32GaugeSlug
    it certainly frees the mind m8, youtube is brilliant cause you can choose what to watch, things that mainstreem tv networks would never dream of airing…
    it’s a pity more dont follow suit! good on you!!!! :)


  17. 32GaugeSlug says:

    A nice attack piece here. Listen to the language this interviewer uses. It’s like they’re trained in covert language.


  18. 32GaugeSlug says:

    @mrbassman25 haha same here!! Good job on the ridding yourself of the TV!! The last thing I watched was something on Steven Hawking about 3 years ago. It frees the mind!


  19. bimbo99 says:

    “Europe isn’t on the list?” Well, its on my list and I’ll be voting against the European stepping stone to World Government.


  20. 1henryw says:

    God the BBC dont even pretend to be neutral :( I’ll be voting ukip but if only they could actually win the election. UKIP’s policies are clever and well thought out. Just imagine how much money we could save just from leaving the EU! A UKIP government would put Great Britian back on its feet :)


  21. SODTHEEU says:

    I don”t know why nIgel does not emphasize UKIP are not a single issue party their website is chock fll of policies on the widest range of issues


  22. eldrak21 says:

    @stuanemma
    I know what you mean, me too.However, I would recommend watching the interview I suggested, very interesting information indeed. I am still not sure how to take the interviewee’s ukip comment, I am still keeping an open mind on the subject and until I see evidence to support his theory shall still be doing what I am doing. Thanks for commenting :)


  23. stuanemma says:

    @eldrak21 If I had a penny every time I heard this same story……


  24. kraftyknight says:

    @goingalt You have Ron Paul.


  25. CRAPCANNONS says:

    this interviewer understands nothing about economics and how to create wealth and prosperity.
    he’s simply a mouthpiece for tired lefty ideologies.

    Might it be worth remembering the source on this CLICK HERE

    Particularly when considering the libelous content and that WITHIN 24 hours of posting the material on their site they had some 25 comments and an unknown number of hits – one can only then consider just howmany hits a rather better known BBC may reasonably have had since March 2010 and there is in no situation a defence against repeating or republishing a libel – one wonders on howmany other sites this has appeared.

    That this long after the event it is being reposted and also featuring on Google must add to the gravity of the defamation but there is of course a year from that first showing relative to the BBC and sites such as  YouTube where UkipMedia have had over 5,000 viewings since they conciously posted it on 31-Mar-2010 and http://www.membershipfire.com/?p=1383 whose posting was yesterday – each has a year in which appropriate cease and desist letters and warning of further action can be issued.

    I find myself in a strange position as in order to publish the item of news I have no choice but to publish the libel my Farage and The BBC! I would hope that a Court would consider that an acceptable use as it seeks to redress the libel!

 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 in BBC, David ICKE, Defamation, Hard Talk, Libel, Nigel FARAGE, Steven Sackur | Leave a Comment »

#0050 – David ICKE CLEARLY LIBELS & DEFAMES A UKIP SUPPORTER.

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 09/07/2010

#0050 – David ICKE CLEARLY LIBELS & DEFAMES A UKIP SUPPORTER. 
Clean EUkip up NOW  make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER  

the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
#0050 – David ICKE CLEARLY LIBELS & DEFAMES A UKIP SUPPORTER,
AS LISTED ON THE British Democracy Forum WITH REBUTTAL!

Hi,
it is all very well peddling stories about lizards and poking fun at authority but David Icke has clearly lept into the gutter with this latest defamation and vile libel which has now materialised on Anthony Butcher’s sordid British Democracy Forum – formerly the UKIP Forum – as shown here:

To save you goung to the article cited at CLICK HERE
 Shamefully to prevent the publication of the rebuttal the moderators on the grubby little site have aidesd the perpetuation of the libel by removing the link to the facts showing David Icke to have morality, ethics and integrity lower than the belly of a lizard!
Read the article for yourself:

SK-H290 – David ICKE & others
SHOWN & PROVEN TO BE LIARS

Hi,

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN – WITHOUT PREJUDICE:

David ICKE A PROVEN LIAR in collusion with others, as in view of the context and its indisputable linkage to other lies he has freely and openly published and broadcast as fact he has made it VERY clear that he is claiming that I Greg Lance-Watkins am the individual who he dishonestly, irresponsibly, maliciously and gratuitously has labeled, defamed and libeled.

There can be few libels more heinous than a false claim that one is a sexual pervert dismissed the army for criminal sexual offences and subversive comments.
BEFORE WE GO FURTHER:
David ICKE has clearly and irrefutably libeled me as has Butlin Cat by reproducing the libel as has the so called Justice for Hollie Greig FaceBook site by hosting the libel, as have others.
I clearly and unequivocally state that I was in The Green Jackets, I was an Officer Cadet at The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst on a 2 year standard course to a Queen’s Commission – that I left the Army of my own choice, that I was NOT dismissed from the Army and that I have never in any walk of life faced charges or accusations of any sexual misdemeanour.
Mr. David ICKE is a liar and has very clearly defamed and libelled me.

>>Butlin Cat:
“from a solid-gold source:
From David Icke = about an hour ago · LikeUnlike · Loading…
very interesting about “GREG LANCE-WATKINS” “sexual preferences” = children?


‘Information from Ministry of Defence Army records reveals that a Rifleman Gregory Lancelot Watkins was born in Clifton, Bristol.


He joined what was then the Kings Royal Rifles in December 1959 as a clerk and was posted to Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in a clerical post until May 1960. The army reports state that Rifleman Watkins was discharged early from National Service in July 1960 as unsuitable because of his sexual preferences and subversive comments.’


http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/36034-hollie-at-the-high-court– <<
FORTUNATELY I HAVE A SCREEN CAPTURE – THIS COULD COST THOSE INVOLVED OVER £1/2 MILLION + costs!

 I reserve my right under law to take such action as I may find expedient against all who have been party to this gross and defamatory Libel.
Now even Mr. Fruit Loop himself has jumped on Hollie Greig to get a piece of the publicity.
Let us look at the facts:

  • I was born in Frenchay Hospital in Bristol NOT Clifton.

  • I was born 26-Jan-1946

  • My Mother Winifred Beatrice Watkins nee Ferris, was registered at 10 Hedwick St., St. George, Bristol at her parent’s home.

  • My Father Desmond John Watkins was still on active duty as a fighter pilot in the RAF.

  • I was christened Gregory Lance Watkins NOT Lancelot.

  • I effected the hyphenation of my name on all legal documents from approx 1960 by way of differentiation as

  • I knew 3 or 4 other Greg Watkins.

  • I have maintained the style to date.

  • I joined The Regular Army in about 1964 NOT when I was 13 or 14 in 1959!!

  • I joined The Royal Green Jackets at Peninsular Barracks Winchester in the Ox&Bucks LI

  • I was NEVER a clerk in or out of the Army.

  • I went to The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, as an Officer Cadet, after completing basic and a course at Beaconsfield.

  • The course at RMAS was a two year course.

  • I was not Commissioned as I purchased my discharge on two issues of principle, primarily, immediately prior to my Commission.

 Is it any wonder these little nurds all hide behind idiot names! Butlin Cat can’t be much older that 17 or 18 at a guess and is an inadequate little creep with a vocabulary like an open sewer.
I’ve taken the liberty of addressing the posting by the fools as a separate posting and in view of the despicable dishonesty of the filth that are posting such malicious lies like David Icke, Brian Gerrish, Paul Drockton, Belinda McKenzie, Butlin Cat Litter and their like I would appreciate anyone reposting my comment in full anywhere they can on the internet to show just what liars have gathered around promoting the lies surrounding the Hollie Greig ‘STORY’.
Thank You – to those who are decent enough and have the integrity to ensure my post is widespread.
SHOULD I DECIDE TO ACT FOR DAMAGES:
  • I will set aside: 20% of my net compensation to reward those who provide NEW screen captures of the defamation against me with details making it actionable with a screen capture of each site on which they have posted this entire message.
     
  • 10% for a British Charity caring for abused children. 10% for a British Charity caring for abused women.
     
  • 10% in full or by proportion to anyone assisting in funding my case – they will be refunded all contributed funding by those who have defamed me when they lose as clearly they will.
We have at least a year in which to decide if we wish to act from the last date on which the defamation remained and I’m not entirely sure that that is not 6 years – I’ll check later today.
Thank YOU for your support. We set out to establish the truth and ensure Justice would be seen to be done – it is interesting that for all their self righteous and self promoting endless sordid religion we see people like Brian Gerrish befouling the internet with lies as is Robert Green, Anne Greig, Stuart Usher, Belinda McKenzie, Butlin Cat, Matt Quinn, Sandra Barr, Paul Drockton, Sandie Fox, Ian McFerron, Adam Alden, Christopher Harrison, Shauna McDonald, Keiran Marlow, Barbara Richards, David Icke and others!
Don’t forget you can get a part of the 20% for a screen capture of a new instance of defamation of me with details and a copy of a screen capture of your having posted this entire message on a web site or blog.
Thank YOU for YOUR help in shutting down the filth and lies on the internet surrounding Anne Greig’s ‘STORY’.
May I also suggest that individuals like Liam Ball, Gabe Nelson, Paul Phillips, Dawn? Westwood, Tom George, Susan Keenan, Lesley McLaren and others who have been defamed might care to contact me and I will retain their details and when/if I proceed I will include them in my claim using my very clear, open and shut case as the lead for the Lawyers.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
PS: Now shall we return to establishing the truth surrounding the Hollie Greig ‘STORY’ and ensuring Justice is seen to be done and that Anne & Hollie Greig receive the hands on care and attention they clearly need to prevent their further exploitation.
Greg_L-W.

SK-H291 – Mr. David ICKE & OTHERS Banged to Rights it would seem!
With regard to:
http://stolenkids-hollie.blogspot.com/2010/07/sk-h290-david-icke-others-shown-proven.html

IF YOU have been Libelled, defamed or lied about on the internet, or elsewhere, by people YOU may believe you can not afford to sue do remember CFA.
For the full details of CFA CLICK HERE
 I am reliably advised, best to wait until you are defamed by someone of substance and once that case is proven ALL subsequent cases will fall under the same judgement at little extra cost, as you proceed to enforce against them.
ADDRESS REDACTED


9th July 2010


Dear Greg,


My attention was drawn, by others who knew you those many years ago, to an article on the website of David Icke.


The detail is very unpleasant and purports to come from a ‘solid gold source’.


You will remember that we first met at the Royal Army School of Education, Beaconsfield in September 1964. From memory you were in the Royal Green Jackets and I think the 43rd and 52nd (Ox. & Bucks.) which I believe became the 1st Bn. Like myself, you had only served a very short time before being sent to Beaconsfield.


Amongst others you will remember was David Purley who later became a well known Formula 1 racing driver. Mr. Icke seems to have confused you with a person who he says served in the KRRC and who was conscripted as a National Serviceman. National Service ended some 4 years before we joined. Indeed the last National Serviceman, a 2nd Lt, presumably after a Short Service Commission, left, I understand, in 1963.


Mr. Icke seems to think that you were posted to the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst as a clerk. When I know that you were my next door but one neighbour as an Officer Cadet in New College, Gaza Company, Intake 38.


Mr. Icke’s other assertions don’t bear thinking of. He seems to have decided to launch a vicious and malicious attack on you for no clear reason. His words appear totally unrelated to the headline under which they appear. What could have possessed him to make such ridiculous and unfounded but potentially damaging allegations?


Does he write this stuff himself or rely on someone else to get things wrong for him?


Regards and best wishes,


NAME REDACTED
I trust the letter makes the case totally clear and will be happy to provide numerous retired Army Officers, with whom I served, to Court to attest to just how gross and how damaging this gratuitous defamation and libel has been to my reputation in circles that could well make Mr. Icke and his despicable pals a little dizzy!
Regards,
Greg_L-W.

‘Open the curtains, throw open the windows and permit the light of investigation and fresh air into family courts and sexual, emotional and physical abuse of the vulnerable – expose the abuse & the abuse of authority of those acting in OUR name!
No child asked to be or enjoys abuse, it is for the gratification of the inadequate‘.
To understand the Concept & Service of
StolenKids- where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids- GO TO http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
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)
LEAVE-THE-EU
to Reclaim YOUR Future   

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in David ICKE, ICKE, Libel, National Service, Officer Cadet, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst | 2 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: