Appeal brought on 14 August 2024 by Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel), International Association of Judges, Association of European Administrative Judges, Stichting Rechters voor Rechters against the order of the General Court (Grand Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2024 in Case T-530/22 JT, Medel and Others v Council

(Case C-555/24 P)

(C/2024/5792)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Magistrats européens pour la démocratie et les libertés (Medel), International Association of Judges, Association of European Administrative Judges, Stichting Rechters voor Rechters (represented by: C. Zatschler SC, D. Sarmiento Ramírez-Escudero, abogado, E. Egan McGrath SC, A. Bateman, M. Delargy, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Hungary, Republic of Poland, European Commission

Form of order sought

The Appellants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The first plea concerns the standing of Polish judges affected by decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber, where the General Court’s reasoning is vitiated by an incorrect interpretation and application of the established case law of the Court of Justice relating to the notion of ‘direct concern’ provided for in Article 263(4) TFEU, as set out notably in Nord Stream 2 (1). The General Court erred in at least the following respects, articulated as separate limbs of this plea:

The second plea concerns the standing of judges generally, who are directly concerned by the failure of the three judicial milestones to re-establish effective judicial protection and thus notably requiring them to fulfil their functions, including adjudicating cases concerning Recovery and Resilience Facility funding, in precarious circumstances. The General Court in this context erroneously proceeded on the basis that relevant effects for direct concern can only derive from the imposition of positive obligations on applicants and not from an omission to impose necessary safeguards in the applicants’ favour.

The third plea concerns the failure of the General Court to recognise that, in the light of the particular circumstances of the present case, the conditions for admissibility should have been interpreted in a way such as to find that the Appellants and their members were directly concerned. This plea also challenges the application of the Carvalho (2) case-law, concerning the standing of the Appellants in their own right. The arguments advanced in the context of this plea relate to:

(1)  Judgment of 12 July 2022, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council, C-348/20 P, EU:C:2022:548.

(2)  Order of 8 May 2019, Carvalho and Others v Parliament and Council, T-330/18, EU:T:2019:324.

(3)  Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v Switzerland, App. N° 53600/20, CE:ECHR:2024:0409JUD005360020.