28.10.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/12

—

(Case C-676/19 P)

(2019/C 363/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Bruno Gollnisch (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2019 (T-95/18);

—refer the case back to the General Court;

—award the appellant the sum of EUR 12 500 in respect of procedural costs;

—order the Parliament to pay the costs.

In the event of the appeal being upheld, the appellant also claims that the Court should:

—if it considers that it has sufficient information, itself rule on the substance of the case;

—annul the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 23 October 2017;

—grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

—order the Parliament to pay all the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.First ground of appeal, alleging retroactive application in defavorem of subsequent case-law in order to declare the action inadmissible

In order to dismiss the action, the judgment under appeal retroactively, unfavourably and unlawfully applied case-law of the Court from the period after the action was brought, even though the action was explicitly described as admissible under the previously existing situation.

2.Second ground of appeal, alleging refusal to apply Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

The General Court held that those two articles did not apply to the case, even though it was clear from Article 52 of the Charter and the explanations of its articles recognised in the case-law of the Court that they were relevant.

3.Third ground of appeal, alleging incorrect interpretation on the case-law relating to the right to be heard

The judgment under appeal incorrectly relied on a judgment of the Court in order to deny the appellant his right to an oral hearing, even though that judgment concerned only interveners in specific and marginal proceedings which, moreover, authorised an oral hearing.

4.Fourth ground of appeal, alleging contradictory reasoning and infringement of the rights of the defence

In order to hold that it was lawful for a document not to have been disclosed to the applicant during the proceedings at issue, the General Court gave that document contradictory classifications, resulting in an infringement of the rights of the defence.

—