19.4.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/51

(Case T-124/21)

(2021/C 138/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) and 22 other applicants (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

—annul Article 1 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020, amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (OJ 2020 L 437, p. 49), in particular Article 3(11), Article 4(2)(a) and (b), Article 5(a)(1), Article 7(b)(3a) [and] Article 9a(1) to (4) thereof, as added and amended by Regulation 2020/2223;

—order the Parliament to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), of the European Convention on Human Rights, of the general principles recognised by case-law, of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of Members of the European Parliament, of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, and of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.

The applicants claim that the contested measure will allow the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) immediately to access, without giving prior notice, any information about, as well as the premises of, Members of the European Parliament (‘Members’) and their assistants, without obtaining a warrant to that effect from an independent judicial official as is required in any democratic State.

The applicants also criticise the contested measure because, in their view, it will allow OLAF to access private devices as well as bank statements and bank accounts of Members and their assistants.

The applicants consider that such investigative procedures may be initiated by OLAF acting solely on the basis of an anonymous tip-off, and fear that, because of this, Members, especially Members of the parliamentary opposition, may be subjected to pressure, blackmail and other forms of intimidation, which may enable others to influence their parliamentary activity.

The applicants also argue that the Controller of procedural guarantees is in no way an independent body, as would be the case with an investigating judge, with regard to the criminal police investigators, because he or she is appointed by and financially dependent on the Commission. The applicants submit that such a system does not offer any guarantee of impartiality in respect of the elected Members of the opposition who might be the subject of investigations by OLAF.

The applicants further claim that the contested measure calls into question the general principles of EU law enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, because it allows OLAF to access information that does not concern it and, what is more, does not concern the Parliament or any other European institution.

Lastly, the applicants submit that the contested measure calls into question the general principles of EU law enshrined in Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of Members of the European Parliament, because the contested measure allows OLAF to infringe Members’ immunity without a judicial institution having first requested that their parliamentary immunity be waived and, a fortiori, without that institution having first obtained such a waiver, and without the operation in question being one that requires exceptional expedition. According to the applicants, the contested measure allows OLAF — and, consequently, the Parliament, at the latter’s request — to circumvent Members’ immunity and inviolability in order to gain access to material to which it would otherwise not have access.