Action brought on 9 August 2021 – Vasallo Andrés v Parliament

(Case T-496/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ángel Vasallo Andrés (Valladolid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

under Article 263 TFEU, uphold the claim that the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, as well as any employee of the Spanish public administration in active employment or on leave or any person who is or has at any time been linked to or affiliated with the latter or the legislature or the executive of the Kingdom of Spain, must be required to recuse themselves on the ground that their participation in the petition procedure entails a clear conflict of interests constituting, in short, an infringement of essential procedural requirements that gives rise to the annulment sought;

in the same vein, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, recognise the applicant’s right to know the justification and reasoning of the decisions taken during the process that led to the contested decision, and specifically for the initial admission of the applicant’s petition, as well as the change in the status thereof from ‘Available to supporters’ to ‘Not admissible’, inasmuch as it entails a subsequent infringement of essential procedural requirements;

furthermore, annul Decision D 200663, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, on the ground that it results in an infringement of the Treaties and other rules of law relating to their application in the terms set out, as well as a further infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the grounds of that decision by which the applicant’s petition is declared inadmissible are not applicable to the case and lack any foundation in law. In the light of the foregoing, the Court should, following the appropriate legal formalities: – primarily, declare that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed; – in the alternative, order the Committee on Petitions to return the matter to the initial moment, in which that committee should take a new decision on the petition submitted, this time respecting the rights that were infringed and declaring that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed and is available to supporters;

as a result of all the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, urge the corresponding allocation of personal liability to those other parties who have infringed the applicable legislation, and who have participated in what may clearly be regarded as irregular actions adopted with the sole aim of preventing the applicant’s petition from succeeding in parliament. In the alternative, if such a request exceeds the Court’s jurisdiction, take such steps that the existence of the irregular actions complained of is reflected in its decision as proven facts, in such a way that it may support subsequent administrative proceedings brought on the basis of that liability;

lastly, under Articles 133 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, expressly order the opposing party to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including in the case where there is an admission on its part, while requesting that the Court should, in the event that some of the applicant’s claims are unsuccessful, not order the applicant to pay the appropriate portion of the other party’s costs, given the seriousness and the legal merits of the claims put forward.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging a preliminary infringement of essential procedural requirements when the decision was taken on the matter raised in the petition.

The applicant submits in that regard that the employment history and the nationality of the President of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Ms Dolors Montserrat, should have led her to abstain in respect of the contested decision, since the petition entailed a clear conflict of interests on her part.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the European Union (EU) Treaties, as well as a failure to state reasons regarding the substance of the matter.

The applicant maintains in that regard that the matter raised in the petition does fall within the fields of activity of the European Union, as a result of which the contested decision must be annulled on the ground that it infringes the applicable EU legislation.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of procedural requirements stemming from the change in status of the applicant’s petition, as well as a failure to state reasons for that change.

The applicant submits in that regard that the status of the petition was changed unduly and irregularly, on account of the fact that, after being admitted and its status being ‘Available to supporters’, it passed in but a few hours to ‘Not admissible’, with no justification given.

____________