# C_2020114EN.01001701.xml

| 6.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 114/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 114/17

---

Action brought on 13 February 2020 — Rivière and Others v Parliament

(Case T-88/20)

(2020/C 114/18)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jérôme Rivière (Nice, France) and 10 other applicants (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

| — | annul the oral decision of the President of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020 forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the oral decision of the President of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020 forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament;

| — | order the European Parliament to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to bear all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement and distortion in law and fact of Article 10 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and infringement of Article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union, specifically because the small flag placed by a Member of Parliament on his desk is neither a streamer nor a banner. Furthermore, the presence of such a flag does not interfere with the smooth conduct of parliamentary business, the proper functioning of the Parliament’s technical equipment or the good order of the Chamber, and does not constitute improper behaviour. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement and distortion in law and fact of Article 10 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and infringement of Article 4 of the Treaty of the European Union, specifically because the small flag placed by a Member of Parliament on his desk is neither a streamer nor a banner. Furthermore, the presence of such a flag does not interfere with the smooth conduct of parliamentary business, the proper functioning of the Parliament’s technical equipment or the good order of the Chamber, and does not constitute improper behaviour.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the European Parliament’s former practice and of the principle of legal certainty which, according to the case-law, is recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a ‘fundamental requirement’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the European Parliament’s former practice and of the principle of legal certainty which, according to the case-law, is recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Union as a ‘fundamental requirement’.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, in so far as, under Article 22 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the President does not have the power unilaterally to refuse to give the floor to a Member of Parliament for the reason he relied on. The applicants submit that it is the Bureau of the European Parliament which takes decisions on matters relating to the conduct of sittings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, in so far as, under Article 22 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the President does not have the power unilaterally to refuse to give the floor to a Member of Parliament for the reason he relied on. The applicants submit that it is the Bureau of the European Parliament which takes decisions on matters relating to the conduct of sittings.

---