The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, and Article 6(2) of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976,

–   having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986(1),

–   having regard to the requests submitted by Jean-Charles Marchiani for defence of his immunity before the French courts,

–   having regard to its decision of 5 July 2005(2), in which it decided to defend the immunity of Jean-Charles Marchiani,

–   having regard to Rule 121(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0316/2005),

A.   whereas, by arguing in its Judgment No 1784 of 16 March 2005 that no law or convention, nor any constitutional principle, allowed it to conclude that Article 100-7, first subparagraph of the French Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable to Members of the European Parliament, the French Court of Cassation did not apply Article 10 of the above Protocol, thus denying a Member of the European Parliament of French nationality the benefit of Article 100-7, first subparagraph of the French Code of Criminal Procedure enjoyed by national members of parliament,

B.   whereas in its abovementioned decision of 5 July 2005 Parliament called for the said judgment of 16 March 2005 to be annulled or overturned, and at all events for it to cease to have any practical or legal effects,

C.   whereas, following Parliament's statements drawing attention to the abovementioned decision of 5 July 2005, the Minister of Justice of the French Republic has said that, since the judgment of the Court of Cassation had become final, no legal action allowed it to be annulled or overturned as requested by that resolution,

D.   whereas the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities forms part of primary Community law,

E.   whereas, by refusing to apply Article 100-7 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure to a Member of the European Parliament of French nationality, the competent French court has infringed primary Community law,

F.   whereas it is clear from the case-law of the Court of Justice that a Member State may be held responsible for a decision by a national court(3),

G.   whereas the Commission has a duty as guardian of the Treaties to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty,

1.  Decides to ask the Commission to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against the French Republic for infringement of primary Community law;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution immediately to the Commission and to the competent authorities of the French Republic.

(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 383, and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391. (2) Texts Adopted of that date, P6_TA(2005)0269. (3) Case C-224/01 Köbler v Republic of Austria [2003] ECR I-10239.