21.11.2022

Official Journal of the European Union

C 441/17

—

(Case C-600/22 P)

(2022/C 441/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres (represented by: P. Bekaert, S. Bekaert, advocaten, and G. Boye, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment under appeal;

—refer the case back to the General Court or, in the alternative, annul the challenged acts; and

—order the Parliament and the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs or, in the alternative, reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of this appeal, the appellants rely on the following four pleas in law:

First, the General Court erred in law and infringed Article 263 TFEU and, thus, Article 47 of the Charter, by concluding that the fact that the appellants had not been allowed by the Parliament to take office, exercise their mandate and sit in the Parliament as from 2 July 2019 was not the result of the refusal of the Parliament to recognize the appellants’ status as Members of the European Parliament, as reflected in the instruction of 29 May 2019 and the letter of 27 June 2019, and therefore, that the challenged acts did not bring about a change to the appellants’ legal situation.

Pursuant to Article 12 of the 1976 Act, it is for the Parliament to decide disputes that may arise out of the provisions of the 1976 Act, of which Article 1(3) is an essential provision. Donnici wrongly interpreted the division of powers between national authorities and the Parliament provided for in Article 12 of the 1976 Act as regards the powers conferred to the Parliament. The appellants would have in any event been able to take their seats pending the decision on the dispute they brought before the Parliament, and therefore, the judgment under appeal erred in law by deciding that the challenged acts did not bring a change to the appellants’ situation.

The General Court erred in law by concluding that the decision not to take an initiative to assert the privileges and immunities pursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament is not a challengeable act.

The General Court erred in law by claiming that the appellants had not made a request to the Parliament for the defence of their privileges and immunities pursuant to Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

—