Appeal brought on 16 November 2023 by European Data Protection Supervisor against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 September 2023 in Case T-578/22, European Data Protection Supervisor v Parliament and Council
(Case C-698/23 P)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: T. Zerdick, A. Buchta, F. Coudert and D. Nardi, agents)
Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
set aside the order under appeal;
declare admissible the action brought by EDPS for the annulment of Articles 74a and 74b of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA1 , as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role in research and innovation2 ; and
order the European Parliament and Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.
First plea: the General Court, by declaring EDPS action for annulment inadmissible, and in particular by finding that the ruling of the Judgment of the Court of 22 May 1990 (C-70/88, EU:C:1990:217) could not be applied by analogy to establish standing of the EDPS to bring annulment proceedings ex Article 263 TFEU against the contested provisions, committed an error in interpreting the principle of institutional balance to the detriment of the EDPS’ prerogative of independence, and deprived him of the necessary judicial remedy to enforce it.
Second plea: the General Court erred in not characterizing the EDPS as directly and individually concerned by the contested provisions, thereby denying him standing to bring annulment proceedings under the conditions of the second part of Article 263(4) TFEU.
____________
1 OJ 2016 L 135, p. 53.
1 OJ 2022 L 169, p. 1.