Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/16

—

(Case C-17/23 P)

(2023/C 104/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: Asociación Liberum and 926 appellants (L.M. Pardo Rodríguez and F. Feliù Pamplona, abogados)

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

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

—set aside the order of the General Court of 15 November 2022, Liberum Association and Others v Parliament and Council, T-476/22, EU:T:2022:714; to the extent that the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permit, reject the plea of inadmissibility, declare the action admissible and refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the substance or, in the alternative, declare the contested measure to be of direct concern to the appellants and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on individual concern or join it to the substance.

—order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

—order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

—grant the appellants any additional remedy that it considers appropriate in law.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

1.By the first ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, has been breached and that the General Court infringed the obligation to state reasons, because it distorted the subject matter of the action by holding that it corresponded to ‘a duty to be vaccinated’, set out in paragraphs 4, 8, 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the order under appeal. Consequently, the first ground of appeal is based on an error of law resulting from the absence of a valid legal basis for the decision at issue.

2.By the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that the effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, read in conjunction with Article 263 TFEU and Article 19 TEU, has been breached and, lastly, they claim that the Court did not correctly interpret the arguments put forward by the applicants at first instance. It is not disputed that the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU extended the standing of natural and legal persons to institute proceedings. In the appellants’ view, the Court interpreted the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in an excessively restrictive manner and disregarded the requirements of effective judicial protection.

—