Case T‑770/16

Janusz Korwin-Mikke

v

European Parliament

(Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Conduct adversely affecting the dignity of the Parliament and the smooth conduct of parliamentary business — Disciplinary sanctions of forfeiture of entitlement to the subsistence allowance and temporary suspension from participation in all activities of the Parliament — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition), 31 May 2018

1.      Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons — Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality

(Art. 263 TFEU)

2.      Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope and limits

(Art. 296 TFEU)

3.      Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression — Affirmation in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights — Identical meaning and scope

(Art. 6(1), third para. and (3) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 11 and 52(3) and (7))

4.      Fundamental rights — Freedom of expression — Limitations — Conditions — Limitations corresponding to those allowed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 11 and 52(1))

5.      European Parliament — Members — Rights — Freedom of expression — Limits

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 11)

6.      EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Differences between the various language versions — Context and purpose of the legislation in question as a basis for reference

7.      European Parliament — Members — Disciplinary measures — Penalties — Statement adversely affecting the dignity of the Parliament and the smooth conduct of parliamentary business — Need for serious disorder during the session or a serious disruption of the business of Parliament

(Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules 11 and 166)

8.      Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Real and certain damage caused by an illegal measure — Annulment of the illegal act in dispute — Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 23)

2.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 24)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 38)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 41-45)

5.      The freedom of expression of members of parliament must be afforded greater protection in the light of the fundamental importance which Parliament plays in a democratic society. However, while it is true that speech in Parliament enjoys an elevated level of protection, in view of the close nexus between an effective political democracy and the operation of Parliament, the exercise of free speech in Parliament may have to yield on occasions to the legitimate interests of protecting the orderly conduct of parliamentary business as well as the protection of the rights of members of parliament.

It follows that, first, a procedure rule of Parliament can provide for the possibility of penalising members for their comments only in the event that those comments undermine the proper functioning of the Parliament or pose a serious threat to society, such as incitement to violence or racial hatred. Secondly, the power, granted to parliaments, to impose disciplinary sanctions in order to ensure the proper conduct of their business or the protection of certain fundamental rights, principles or freedoms should be reconciled with the need to ensure respect for the freedom of expression of members of parliament.

(see paras 46, 47, 49, 50)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 55)

7.      Having regard to the particular importance of the freedom of expression of members of parliament and the strict limits on which restrictions may be imposed on that freedom, Rules 11 and 166 of the Rules of Procedure must be interpreted as preventing an MEP from being penalised for comments made in the course of his parliamentary functions, in the absence of exceptionally serious disorder during the session or disruption of the business of Parliament. In addition, both the first line of Rule 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Rule 166(2) of those rules cover the ‘conduct’ of MEPs, who must respect certain obligations and not compromise the smooth conduct of parliamentary business or disturb the peace and quiet of Parliament’s premises. By contrast, comments, remarks and speeches are not referred to and are therefore not likely to be subject, as such, to penalties. Lastly, an infringement of the principles set out in Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure, to which Rule 166(1) thereof refers, if it were established, cannot, of itself, be penalised as such; it can only be penalised where it is accompanied by a disruption of the business of Parliament. It follows that, even if comments made in the course of parliamentary functions could be treated in the same way as conduct and that those comments could, on that basis, constitute an infringement of the principles set out in Rule 11(2) of the Rules of Procedure, they could not be subject to a penalty in the absence of exceptionally serious disorder or disruption of the business of Parliament.

(see paras 63, 65, 66, 68)

8.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 77)