Barron & Ors v Collins

Where an MEP asks the European Parliament to defend parliamentary immunity, a national court must stay proceedings once it is formally informed by the Parliament that the procedure has been initiated or is under way. A member’s own request, a public announcement in Parliament, or internal preparatory steps by parliamentary officials do not by themselves amount to that notification.

The national court retains exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether immunity applies. Any opinion subsequently issued by the Parliament is not binding on the national court, although the court and Parliament must co-operate to avoid inconsistent interpretations and applications of the immunity provisions.

The claimants brought proceedings for damages for slander and libel arising from a speech made by the defendant, an MEP, concerning the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. The defendant had made an offer of amends, which the claimants accepted, and applications concerning the offer and compensation were listed for hearing.

Shortly before that hearing, the defendant asked the European Parliament to defend her immunity under the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union. She applied to stay the domestic proceedings pending the Parliament’s opinion. The central issue was whether the court had been formally informed, within the meaning of Marra v De Gregorio (Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-210/07), so that a stay was mandatory.

1. Stay application initially refused. The court held that the obligation to stay did not arise on 16 May 2016. The defendant had written to the President of the European Parliament, and parliamentary officials had prepared a proposed letter, but the Parliament had not communicated with the court.
2. Meaning of formal notification. Applying Marra v De Gregorio (Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-210/07), the word informed required a formal communication from the Parliament to the national court. An announcement in the Parliament that the defendant had made a request was insufficient. Internal preparatory steps and an anticipated communication were also insufficient.
3. Legal framework. The court treated the national court as having exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the absolute immunity in Article 8 of the Protocol applied. The Parliament’s eventual view would be an opinion without binding effect, but the duty of sincere co-operation required the institutions to communicate so as to minimise inconsistent applications of the immunity provisions. The guidance in Aldo Patriciello [2012] 1 CMLR 11 confirmed the court’s responsibility to assess the connection between the statement and parliamentary duties.
4. Postscript and order. On 17 May 2016 the Chair of the Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee formally informed the court of the request. The precondition for a mandatory stay was then satisfied. The proceedings were stayed until the Parliament issued its opinion, and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the Stay Application and the Assessment Application thrown away by the stay.

First-instance decision. The judgment records no prior appellate decision.