16.11.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/48

(Case T-613/20)

(2020/C 390/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrada, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant requests that the General Court declare that the application bringing an action against the contested measures, together with the documents annexed thereto, was submitted in good time, admit the application and, on the merits, declare the contested measure, which is the subject of the present proceedings, to be invalid and ineffective, and also to order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision of the European Parliament announced by President Sassoli in the plenary session of 23 July 2020, that, taking into account the decision of the Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Commission, Spain; ‘JEC’) of 3 January 2020 followed by the decision of the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain) of 9 January 2020 and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19 relating to Mr Junqueras, announcing that Mr Jordi Solé i Ferrando had become a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in the place of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies.

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

1.First plea, alleging infringement of the rights of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies under Article 41(1) and (2) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) by the procedure for adopting decisions and because the issue is subject to a decision of the General Court of the European Union (Case T-24/20) and interim measures before the Court of Justice (Case C-201/20); and infringement of Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) and Rule 4(4), (7) and (8) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

It is claimed in that regard that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976) and Rule 4(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament are to be interpreted as requiring a procedure in accordance with the rights conferred by those provisions, which allows objections to the declaration that the parliamentary seat of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies is vacant and that his replacement by another MEP is invalid to be submitted and challenged.

2.Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 14(3) TEU, Article 1(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU (in this instance by the Tribunal Supremo), the principle of the primacy of European Union law, Article 9 (second paragraph) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities, and Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

It is claimed in that respect that no practical effect has been given to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2019, delivered in Case C-502/19 specifically concerning Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, which required waiver (lifting of immunity) to be sought from the European Parliament, and that that judgment has instead been applied in order to proceed with his replacement by another MEP.

In the alternative, it is submitted that Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act and Rule 4(7) of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure must be interpreted as meaning that the European Parliament may uphold the objections to the vacancy of the parliamentary seat laid down in those provisions where it is possible to consider the plea without engaging in any assessment of the Member State’s domestic law, which assessment was in fact carried out in relation to the decision of the JEC of 23 January 2020.

3.Third plea, alleging infringement of Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 9 (first paragraph at (a) and (b)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities and Rule 6 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

The applicant claims that the effectiveness, for Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, of the immunities recognised by Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union has been unlawfully restricted.

4.Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Article 9 (first paragraph at (a)) of Protocol 7 on Privileges and Immunities, Article 39(1) and (2) of the Charter, Article 3, First Protocol, ECHR, Rule 6 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and Article 13(3) of the European Electoral Act (1976), given that Spanish legislation requires a prior petition for waiver of immunity before proceedings may be brought against elected members of Parliament, and the case-law of the Tribunal Supremo to the contrary is contra legem and was established ad hoc and ad hominen, without there being any precedent, as the Tribunal Supremo itself recognises.

5.Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 20 of the Charter for unequal treatment before the law through the failure to apply the same criteria, in the interpretation of EU law, to Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies and the MEP taking his place according to the contested decision.