(AGENPARL) – mer 06 luglio 2022 ��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
the State Counsel and the
olitical
arty VOX.
On 17
June 2019, the Central Elect
oral Commission notified the Parliament of the list of c
andidates elected in Spain
which did not include the applicants’ names. On 20
June 2019, the Central Electoral Commission, in essence, refused
to allow the applicants to take the required oath or
e the required
promise to respect the Spanish Constitution
by means of a written declaration made before a notary or through attorneys designated by a notarised deed, on
the ground that that oath or promise is an act which must be made in person before the
Central Electoral
Commission. On the same day, the Central Electoral Commission notified the Parliament of a decision in which it
noted that the applicants had not taken
or made
the abovementioned oath or promise and declared that the seats
allocated to t
he applicants in the Parliament were vacant and that all the prerogatives to which they might be
entitled by virtue of their duties were suspended until such time as they took that oath or made that promise.
On 27
June 2019, the former President of the Par
liament sent a letter to the applicants informing them, in essence,
that he was not able to treat them as future Members of the European Parliament because their names were not on
the list of elected candidates officially communicated by the Spanish author
ities.
Following that letter, the applicants brought an action for annulment before the
General
Court directed, in essence,
against, first, the Instruction of 29
May 2019 of the former P
resident of the
Parliament refusing them access to the
welcome and ass
istance service offered to incoming Members of the European Parliament and the grant of
temporary accreditation and, second, the refusal of the former President of the Parliament to recognise their status
as Members of the European Parliament, contained in
the letter of 27
June 2019.
The Parliament, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
relied, principally, on the inadmissibility of the action, on the
grounds that the application does
not clearly define certain acts which the
General
Court is asked to annul an
d that
there are no challengeable acts.
General
Court, sitting in extended composition, dismisses the action as inadmissible in
it is not directed
against acts that are challengeable under Article 263 TFEU.
Findings of the
General
Court
Genera
Court begins by referring to settled case
law according to which acts adopted by the institutions,
whatever their nature or form, which are intended to have binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of
an applicant, by bringing about a dis
tinct change in his or her legal position, are regarded as actionable measures
for the
purposes of
Article 263
TFEU.
By contrast, any act not producing binding legal effects, such as preparatory
acts,
confirmatory measures,
implementing measures, mere re
commendations and opinions and, in principle,
internal instructions, falls outside the scope of the judicial review provided for in Article 263 TFEU.
Finally,
in order
to determine
Those criminal proceedin
gs had been brought before the Spanish criminal courts in respect of acts coming within, inter alia, the offences of
‘sedition’ and ‘misuse of public funds’.
Judgments of 11
November 1981,
Commission
60/81
paragraph
and of 26
January 2010,
Internationaler Hilfsfonds
Commission
362/08
paragraph
See judgment of 12
September 2006,
Reynolds T
obacco and Others
Commission
131/03
paragraph
55 and the case
law cited)
and order of
May 2012,
Sepracor Pharmaceuticals
(Ireland)
Commission
477/11
paragraph
52 and the case
law cited); see also, to that effect, judgment of
November 1995,
Nutral
Commission
476/93
paragraph
See judgment of 20
February 2018,
Belgium
Commission
16/16
paragraph
32 and the case
law cited).
��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
challengeable act, the
General
Court finds that that refusal is not an act producing binding legal effects
capable of affecting the applicants’ interests
thin the meaning of the
settled case
of the Court of Justice
The action for annulment of that refusal is, therefore, inadmissible.
First, the
General
Court states that it is apparent from the wording of the letter of 27
June 2019 that the former
President of the Parliament merely took n
ote of the applicants’ legal situation which had been officially notified to
him by the Spanish authorities by way of their communications of 17 and 20
June 2019. Furthermore, that letter
expressly indicated that the position expressed by the former Presid
ent of the Parliament could have evolved on the
basis of further information received from the Spanish authorities. Therefore, according to the
General
Court, that
letter expressly demonstrated that the position of the former President of the Parliament in
that letter was neither a
decision nor definitive.
Second, the
General
Court examines whether the refusal of the former President of the Parliament to recognise the
applicants’ status as Members of the European Parliament was the cause of the legal effect
s alleged by them,
including the fact that they could not
office, exercise their mandate and sit in Parliament. To that end, the
General
Court assesses whether the former President of the Parliament had the power to call into question the
communicatio
n of 17
June 2019, by which the Spanish authorities officially notified him of the list of the candidates
elected at the elections of 26
May 2019, which did not mention the applicants’ names even though their names
featured in the official declaration of 1
June 2019.
In that regard, the
General
Court states that, as regards the election of Members of the European Parliament, the
Electoral Act establishes a sharing of power between the Parliament and the Member States. First, subject to the
provisions of th
e Electoral Act, the electoral procedure is governed in each Member State by its national
provisions.
Second, after referring to the wording of Article 12 of the Electoral Act,
General
Court states that
that article e
xpressly excludes the P
arliamen
’s power
to rule on disputes
arising out of
national law, even where the
Electoral Act refers
to that law, such as the requirement laid down in Article 224(2) of the Spanish Electoral Law. It
follows that, in order to verify the credentials of its Members
, the Parliament must rely on the list of elected
candidates officially communicated by the national authorities, which, in theory, is established in the light of the
officially declared
results and after any disputes
based on the application of national l
aw have been dealt with by
those authorities. The former President of the Parliament did not therefore have the power to review the validity of
the exclusion of certain elected candidates from the list which was officially communicated by the Spanish
autho
rities on 17
June 2019, since that list reflected the official results of the elections of 26
May 2019 as
established, where necessary, after any disputes raised on the basis of national law had been dealt with.
In view of the foregoing,
General
Court
concludes that the fact that the applicants could not take office,
exercise their mandate and sit in Parliament is not a result of the refusal of the former President of the
Parliament to recognise their status as Members of the European Parliament, contai
See above, footnote 5.
Pursuant to the first paragraph of
Article 8 of the Electoral Act
See above, footnote 1.
See above, footnote 5.
��Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
Stay Connected
ording to the
General
Court,
that instruction did not prevent the applicants from carrying out the
administrative steps necessary for them to take office and exercise their mandate and, therefore, did not
result in the applicants being unable to exercise t
he rights associated with their status as Members of the
European Parliament from the opening of the first session following the elections,
that is to say,
from 2
July
2019.
NOTE:
An action for annulment seeks the annulment of acts of the institutions of t
he European Union that are
contrary to European Union law. The Member States, the European institutions and individuals may, under certain
conditions, bring an action for annulment before the Court of Justice or the General Court. If the action is well
nded, the act is annulled. The institution concerned must fill any legal vacuum created by the annulment of the
NOTE:
An appeal, limited to points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against the decision of
the General Court within
two months and ten days of notification of the decision.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the General Court.
full text
of the judgment is published on the CURIA
website on the day of delivery.
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit
(+352) 4303
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from ”
Europe by Satellite
(+32) 2