# C_2020114EN.01001901.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/19

---

Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T-100/20)

(2020/C 114/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (Sant Joan de Vilatorrado, Spain) (represented by: A. Van den Eynde Adroer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks a declaration by the General Court that the action brought against the contested act and the annexes thereto has been lodged in time, that the action admissible and, having regard to the pleas in law relied upon, seeks the annulment of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament, and an order for the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the decision of the President of the European Parliament of 10 December 2019 by which (referring to his decision of 22 August 2019 contested before the General Court of the European Union under case number T-734/19, Junquieras i Vies v Parliament) it declined to rule on the petition for the protection of immunity submitted by Ms Diana Riba i Giner, MEP, on behalf of the Member of the European Parliament Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 3(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Articles 20, 21(1) and (2) and 41(1) and (2) CRFEU and, in addition, the failure to interpret Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament in accordance with the articles cited.






  — | In that regard, the applicant claims that the entry into force of the CFREU as primary law of the EU (specifically the abovementioned articles) grants autonomous subjective rights to MEPs vis-à-vis the European Parliament which must be expressed as a correct interpretation of Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, specifically that at European level the protection of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs is equal and non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality or, at the very least, as procedural rights that require the European Parliament to rule on the petition for the protection of immunity with the guarantees that such rights protect. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) and Article 3(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and Articles 20, 21(1) and (2) and 41(1) and (2) CRFEU and, in addition, the failure to interpret Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament in accordance with the articles cited.

—

In that regard, the applicant claims that the entry into force of the CFREU as primary law of the EU (specifically the abovementioned articles) grants autonomous subjective rights to MEPs vis-à-vis the European Parliament which must be expressed as a correct interpretation of Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, specifically that at European level the protection of the immunity enjoyed by MEPs is equal and non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality or, at the very least, as procedural rights that require the European Parliament to rule on the petition for the protection of immunity with the guarantees that such rights protect.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019 (C-502/19, Junquieras i Vies) and the right to the protection of immunity in accordance with Article 39 CFREU, Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, and Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure.






  — | In that regard the applicant claims that, in the judgment cited, the Court of Justice recognised the applicant’s status as a Member of Parliament and held that an application requesting the European Parliament to waive that immunity should have been lodged. The Court also held that, since the European Parliament itself had granted the applicant the status of MEP, in the present case, that judgment had been disregarded and, that by refusing to rule on the petition for protection of immunity in accordance with the articles cited, the rights enjoyed by Mr Junqueras as an MEP had been infringed. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019 (C-502/19, Junquieras i Vies) and the right to the protection of immunity in accordance with Article 39 CFREU, Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, and Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure.

—

In that regard the applicant claims that, in the judgment cited, the Court of Justice recognised the applicant’s status as a Member of Parliament and held that an application requesting the European Parliament to waive that immunity should have been lodged. The Court also held that, since the European Parliament itself had granted the applicant the status of MEP, in the present case, that judgment had been disregarded and, that by refusing to rule on the petition for protection of immunity in accordance with the articles cited, the rights enjoyed by Mr Junqueras as an MEP had been infringed.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the grounds that the President of the Parliament lacked competence to decide on the admissibility of the request for protection of immunity, and the failure to follow the established procedure in that regard.






  — | The applicant claims, in that respect, that the President lacked competence to adopt a decision that the request for the protection of immunity was inadmissible and that he infringed Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament by failing to follow established procedure in that regard. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the grounds that the President of the Parliament lacked competence to decide on the admissibility of the request for protection of immunity, and the failure to follow the established procedure in that regard.

—

The applicant claims, in that respect, that the President lacked competence to adopt a decision that the request for the protection of immunity was inadmissible and that he infringed Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament by failing to follow established procedure in that regard.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 CFREU, Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union in its entirety and Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.






  — | The applicant submits in that regard that, by failing to protect the immunity of Mr Junqueras and failing to require the European Parliament to rule on a petition for protection of immunity, the right to immunity granted by Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union has been infringed in its entirety. |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39 CFREU, Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union in its entirety and Articles 7 and 9 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.

—

The applicant submits in that regard that, by failing to protect the immunity of Mr Junqueras and failing to require the European Parliament to rule on a petition for protection of immunity, the right to immunity granted by Article 9 of the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Union has been infringed in its entirety.

---