11.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 321/54

(Case T-385/23)

(2023/C 321/60)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Constantin Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Şandru, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the decision to bring a case to judgment and to dismiss that case in part, issued by the Permanent Chamber of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on 8 December 2022, in case file EPPO No. I.130/2021, by which the European Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to bring to judgment the case in which the applicant is accused, since the Permanent Chamber was not constituted by the minimum number of European Prosecutors required under the EU legislation, thereby infringing the rules on the composition of Permanent Chambers, governed by Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017;

—[and the applicant] advances the plea of illegality concerning the internal rules of procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office since they are contrary to Article 10 of the EPPO Regulation, and the plea of illegality concerning the provisions of those rules which are contrary to the TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of the EPPO Regulation, through the issuance of the contested decision. In essence, the contested decision of Permanent Chamber No 10 was issued in breach of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’), which requires the Permanent Chambers to be composed of two permanent Members in addition to the Chair.

2.Second plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of the internal rules of procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Given that the EPPO considers that it was sufficient that the provisions of Article 23(5) of the internal rules of procedure of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office were complied with in adopting the contested decision of the Permanent Chamber, the applicant put forward, on the basis of Article 277 TFEU, the plea of illegality concerning the abovementioned provision on the ground that it is contrary to Article 10(1) of the EPPO Regulation, which may not be derogated from.