EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62019TN0734

Case T-734/19: Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

OJ C 432, 23.12.2019, p. 68–68 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.12.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 432/68


Action brought on 4 November 2019 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-734/19)

(2019/C 432/78)

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 claims that the General Court should find that the action against the contested act and the annexes thereto has been lodged in time, declare the action admissible and, having regard to the pleas in law relied upon, annul the contested act of the President of the European Parliament, and order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the President of the European Parliament, Mr Sassoli, of 22 August 2019, whereby he declared himself not to be competent and, therefore, rejected the petition of 4 July 2019 made to the President with a view to triggering, in accordance with Rule 8 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the urgent action procedure in order to assert Mr Junqueras i Vies’ parliamentary immunity.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in that the President of the European Parliament declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition for protection of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies, submitted on 4 July 2019, when the case raises serious legal issues regarding compliance with EU law, and especially the protection of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament. That decision was adopted without the case being dealt with and on the sole basis of the communication from the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission, Spain) declaring Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies’ seat vacant.

In that connection, the applicant claims that:

The oath or promise to uphold the Spanish constitution is a substantive requirement under domestic electoral law which infringes the provisions of the European Electoral Act 1976.

In the absence of implementation of the mechanism for substituting candidates in a given seat, the declaration as to the vacancy of the seat, made by the Junta Electoral Central de España (Central Electoral Commission) on a ground other than those laid down in the European Electoral Act 1976, infringes Article 13 of that Electoral Act and the Decision on the composition of the European Parliament.

The decision is unjustified and arbitrary, since both the Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo de España (Supreme Court, Spain) and the General Court of the European Union have identified, with regard to the facts and situation described, serious issues of EU law, and given that the reference for a preliminary ruling currently pending in Case C-502/19 has been made and declared admissible.

The interpretation of Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament must be in line with the maximum effectiveness of the rights and rules laid down in the Treaty on European Union, and in Article 39, Article 20(1) and (2), Article 21 and Article 52 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, Article 5 of the European Electoral Act 1976, and Rule 3(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, as well as in the case-law and opinions which interpret the aforementioned rights and rules. The unjustified decision of the President of the European Parliament, whereby he declared himself not to be competent to deal with the petition submitted to him in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament therefore infringes those rights and rules and is null and void.


Top