Case T‑24/20
Oriol Junqueras i Vies
v
European Parliament
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 15 December 2020
(Action for annulment – Institutional law – Member of the European Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Announcement by the President of the European Parliament declaring a parliamentary seat vacant – Request to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Acts not open to challenge – Inadmissibility)
1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing legal effects – Announcement by the President of the European Parliament declaring a parliamentary seat vacant – Purely informative measure – Not included
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 48-50, 68, 71-73, 90)
2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Alleged refusal by the President of the European Parliament of a request asking him to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Not included
(Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules 7 to 9)
(see paragraphs 52, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113-115, 137)
3. European Parliament – Elections – Competence of the Member States – Electoral procedure – Decision of the national authorities declaring the seat of a Member of the European Parliament vacant, on the basis of national provisions – Parliament’s lack of competence to review that decision
(Arts 5(1) and 13(2) TEU; Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Arts 7(3), 8, 12 and 13(1) and (3); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules 3(3) and 4(4), second subpara.)
(see paragraphs 59, 60, 63-67)
4. European Parliament – Powers – Principle of the hierarchy of norms – Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament whereby the institution is recognised as having powers not conferred by the Electoral Act – Precluded
(Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 4(7))
(see paragraphs 77-79)
5. European Parliament – Powers – Decision of the national authorities declaring the seat of a Member of the European Parliament vacant, on the basis of national provisions – Whether the Parliament has competence to rule on the material inaccuracy of the vacancy – No competence
(Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 4(2), second subpara., (4), first and second subparas, and (7))
(see paragraphs 81-84)
6. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Silence or inaction of an institution – No reply from the President of the European Parliament to a request asking him to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal – Precluded
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 103-106)
7. Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Members of the European Parliament – Immunity – Obligation on national authorities to respect the immunities of Members of the European Parliament flowing directly from the acquisition of that status – Initiative of the President of the Parliament to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – No bearing on that obligation
(Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage; Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Arts 8 and 9; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 8)
(see paragraphs 120, 121)
8. Privileges and immunities of the European Union – Members of the European Parliament – Immunity – Initiative of the President of the Parliament to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Whether binding on national authorities – Not binding
(Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage; Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Arts 8 and 9; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules 8 and 9)
(see paragraphs 120-122, 124, 125)
Résumé
The applicant, Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, a Catalan politician, had been placed in provisional detention in Spain in the context of criminal proceedings brought against him for his participation in the organisation of the referendum on self-determination in 2017 in the autonomous community of Catalonia. During the trial stage of those proceedings, he was elected to the European Parliament in the elections held on 26 May 2019.
Following the judgment of 14 October 2019 by which the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) sentenced the person concerned to a 13-year term of imprisonment and a 13-year disqualification from holding any public office or exercising any public function, the Central Electoral Board – by decision of 3 January 2020 – declared the applicant to be ineligible. Furthermore, by order of 9 January 2020, the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) ruled that, having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies, (1) there was no need to request the Parliament to waive the immunity enjoyed by the applicant in his capacity as Member of the European Parliament because, inter alia, when he had been declared elected, the criminal proceedings concerning him had ended and the deliberations had begun. The Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) explained that, since the applicant had obtained the status of Member of the European Parliament when the criminal proceedings had already reached the trial stage, he could not claim immunity in order to prevent that trial from continuing. In addition, a Member of the European Parliament had, in the meantime, made a request to the President of the Parliament on behalf of the applicant asking him to take an initiative as a matter of urgency, on the basis of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, to assert the applicant’s immunity and also asking the President to refuse to declare the applicant’s seat vacant.
At the plenary session of 13 January 2020, the President of the Parliament made an announcement, following the decision of the Central Electoral Board and the order of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), declaring the applicant’s seat vacant.
By his action before the General Court, the applicant sought annulment of both the announcement by the President of the Parliament declaring his seat vacant and the President’s alleged refusal of the request made by a Member of the European Parliament asking the President to take an initiative to assert his immunity.
The Court found that neither of those two measures could be regarded as a challengeable act and, consequently, dismissed the applicant’s action as inadmissible.
Assessment of the Court
In the first place, concerning the announcement by the President of the Parliament declaring the applicant’s seat vacant, the Court observed that the Parliament has no competence to review the decision of the authorities of a Member State declaring the withdrawal of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament pursuant to national law or to review the resulting decision on the vacancy; the Parliament is merely informed of that vacancy by the national authorities. The Court added that the Parliament also does not have the power to refuse to take account of the decision of the national authorities declaring that vacancy.
Thus, at the plenary session of 13 January 2020, the President of the Parliament merely informed the institution of a pre-existing legal situation resulting exclusively from the decisions of the Spanish authorities. Since that declaration is purely informative, it cannot be the subject of an action for annulment.
Moreover, the Court recalled that verification of whether the national authorities have complied with the procedures laid down by national and EU law does not fall within the competence of the Parliament; it falls within the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts and, as the case may be, the Court of Justice when an action for failure to fulfil obligations is brought before it against the Member State to which those authorities belong.
In the second place, concerning the alleged refusal by the President of the Parliament of the request asking him to take an initiative to assert the applicant’s immunity, the Court pointed out that since this was actually a non-existent act, the claims for annulment directed against it had to be rejected as inadmissible. That request was neither expressly nor impliedly refused by the President of the Parliament. According to the Court, the absence of an explicit reply to that request does not constitute an implied decision of refusal because, in the present case, there is no period at the end of which an implied decision would be deemed to have been taken and there are no exceptional circumstances which would support the conclusion that such a decision exists.
The Court added that, in any event, the initiatives which the President of the Parliament may take on the basis of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure are opinions which are not binding on the national authorities to which they are addressed. Thus, it follows from that rule that the President of the Parliament is in no way required to take an initiative to assert the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament and that he or she has discretion in that regard, even when the Member has been arrested or has had his or her freedom of movement curtailed in apparent breach of his or her privileges and immunities. That discretion excludes the right for the applicant to require the President of the Parliament to take an initiative as a matter of urgency to assert his immunity. Thus, the alleged refusal by the President of the Parliament of the request asking him to take an initiative to assert the applicant’s immunity cannot be regarded as a challengeable act in respect of which an action for annulment may be brought.