Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/24

—

(Case C-458/22 P)

(2022/C 340/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Robert Roos and Others (represented by: P. de Bandt, avocat, M. R. Gherghinaru, V. Heinen, avocates)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, IC and Others

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

—set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2022 in Cases T-710/21, T-722/21 and T-723/21;

—order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court, including the legal costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.

First ground of appeal, alleging an error in law in that the contested decision lacked a valid legal basis

The General Court erred in law when it ruled that Article 25(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament constituted a valid legal basis, first, to restrict access to European Parliament buildings only to persons with a valid EU digital COVID certificate and, second, to justify the processing of highly sensitive personal data of the appellants. The judgment under appeal entails, in particular, infringement of the following legal provisions and general principles of law: (i) Articles 8 and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (ii) Article 7 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union; (iii) Article 2 of Decision of the European Parliament 2005/684/EC, Euratom, of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (iv) Article 5(2) of Regulation 2018/1725; (v) the General Court’s obligation to state reasons under Article 36 and the first subparagraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; (vi) the general principle of parallelism of forms; and (vii) the principle of the hierarchy of norms.

Second ground of appeal, alleging an error in law consisting in the infringement of the purpose limitation principle of the processing of data and the principle of legality

The General Court erred in law when it ruled that the European Parliament was authorised to process the personal data contained in the appellants’ national COVID certificates for the purpose of restricting access to European Parliament buildings even though that purpose is not provided for by Belgian or French law. The General Court also erred in law by ruling that the processing of personal data by the European Parliament falls under the exception provided for in Article 6 of Regulation 2018/1725.

In doing so, the judgment under appeal infringes the following legal provisions and general principles of law: (i) Article 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) and Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 2018/1725; and (ii) the General Court’s obligation to state reasons under Article 36 and the first subparagraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Language of the case: French

(2022/C 340/31)

—

* * *

Language of the case: French