Appeal brought on 8 May 2013 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 7 March 2013 in Case T-186/11 Peter Schönberger v European Parliament
(Case C-261/13 P)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Appellant: Peter Schönberger (represented by: O. Mader, Rechtsanwalt)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought
Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 in Case T-186/11;
Uphold the application made by the appellant at first instance. Annul the respondent’s decision, communicated to the appellant by letter of 25 January 2011, by which the examination of his petition No 1188/2010 was terminated, without the Committee on Petitions examining the substance of the petition;
Order the respondent to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In its presentation of the facts, the General Court suppressed the fact that the chairperson of the Committee on Petitions informed the appellant without giving further reasons that, although his petition was admissible, the Committee on Petitions could not examine its substance. Subsequently the General Court assumed – thereby distorting the facts – that the petition had been examined.
The General Court misrepresented the scope of protection of the fundamental right of petition by unlawfully presuming that it was limited to the examination of the admissibility of a petition. The scope of protection also however encompasses the right to a substantive examination of the petition and to a decision on the substance, if the petition is admissible (right to have case examined).
The General Court contradicted itself by holding that the Parliament’s failure to examine an admissible petition, unlike the failure to examine an inadmissible petition, does not produce any legal effects.
The General Court ruled in a manner contrary to its own case-law in Case T-308/07 Tegebauer. 1 It held in that case that the effectiveness of the right of petition can be impaired where the substance of a petition has not been examined.
The General Court overlooked the legal infringement constituted by the deficient reasoning of the European Parliament’s decision. It instead substituted its own reasoning for the deficient reasons given for the failure to deal with the petition.
The General Court failed to take due account of the fact that the appellant was denied the possibility of presenting his case to the Committee on Petitions in an undistorted way.
____________1 Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 (not yet published in the ECR).