12.7.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/56

(Case T-272/21)

(2021/C 278/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo), Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, J. Costa i Rosselló, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul the European Parliament decisions of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Mr Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (P9_TA(2021)0059 — [2020/2024(IMM)]), Mr Antoni Comín i Oliveres (P9_TA(2021)0060 — [2020/2025(IMM)]) and Ms Clara Ponsatí Obiols (P9_TA(2021)0061 — [2020/2031(IMM)]),

—order the defendant to pay all costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decisions, thereby breaching the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, in connection to the right of effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter.

2.Second plea in law, alleging breach of Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in connection with Articles 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter, as regards the right to a tribunal previously established by law, since the request for waiver was not addressed at Parliament by a competent authority of a Member State.

3.Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to have their affairs handled impartially and fairly laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter, which amounts also to a violation of Article 39(2) of the Charter, in connection with a failure to state reasons as regards several procedural decisions, thereby breaching the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, and a breach of Article 15 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the right to be heard laid down in Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter, in connection with the right to access to documents in accordance with Article 42 of the Charter, and the rights of defence and effective judicial protection.

5.Fifth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of legal certainty and sincere cooperation, arising from the lack of clarity of the contested decisions as regards the scope of the waivers decided, in connection with the right to effective judicial protection and the right of defence laid down in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter.

6.Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the immunities provided for in Article 343 TFEU and Article 9 of Protocol No. 7, in conjunction with Articles 6, 39(2) and 45 of the Charter, Article 21 TFEU, and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure, since Parliament has either completely disregarded the criteria provided for by law in order to decide on a request for waiver of the immunity, or made a manifest error of assessment as regards such criteria provided for by law.

7.Seventh plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter, and of the principle of equality as enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter, in connection with Articles 343 of the TFEU, Article 9 of Protocol No. 7, and Articles 6, 39(2) and 45 of the Charter, since Parliament has either departed from the additional criteria provided for by its own precedent in order to decide on a request for the waiver of immunity or made a manifest error of assessment.

8.Eighth plea in law. Violation of the principle of sound administration and the principle of equal treatment, in connection with Articles 6, 20, 21, 39(2) and 45 of the Charter, as regards precedents that show that Parliament does not waive immunity for the purpose of arresting Members without a conviction, and as regards the application of Rule 9(7) of the Rules of Procedure.