# C_2023094EN.01002001.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/20

---

Appeal brought on 9 December 2022 by OG, OH, OI and OJ against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission

(Case C-754/22 P)

(2023/C 94/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellants: OG, OH, OI and OJ (represented by: D. Gómez Fernández, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2022, delivered in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission, not published, EU:T:2022:661; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 October 2022, delivered in Case T-101/22, OG and Others v Commission, not published, EU:T:2022:661;

| — | if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, take a decision on the substance of the case, uphold the form of order sought at first instance and therefore annul Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (1) and also annul Articles 1 to 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 of 29 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exempting minors from the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, take a decision on the substance of the case, uphold the form of order sought at first instance and therefore annul Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2288 of 21 December 2021 amending the Annex to Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format indicating the completion of the primary vaccination series (1) and also annul Articles 1 to 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/503 of 29 March 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards exempting minors from the acceptance period of vaccination certificates issued in the EU Digital COVID Certificate format; (2)

| — | in the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to take a decision on the substance of the case, refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the forms of order sought in the actions for annulment at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to take a decision on the substance of the case, refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the forms of order sought in the actions for annulment at first instance;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants submit that the order of the General Court of 7 October 2022 in Case T-101/22 misapplies the requirements for standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, based on the following arguments:

| 1. | The contested Delegated Regulations directly affect the appellants’ legal sphere because it is not the Member States which decided that the vaccination certificates would expire 270 days after the completion of the primary vaccination series. It is the Delegated Regulations approved by the Commission which decided that and which have also caused that automatic loss of validity. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The contested Delegated Regulations directly affect the appellants’ legal sphere because it is not the Member States which decided that the vaccination certificates would expire 270 days after the completion of the primary vaccination series. It is the Delegated Regulations approved by the Commission which decided that and which have also caused that automatic loss of validity.

| 2. | The Delegated Regulations automatically remove the validity of the vaccination certificates without the involvement of a Member State unless the holder of the certificate agrees to have a booster vaccine, which means that it is a measure indirectly imposing a vaccination, thus affecting the appellants’ legal sphere. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Delegated Regulations automatically remove the validity of the vaccination certificates without the involvement of a Member State unless the holder of the certificate agrees to have a booster vaccine, which means that it is a measure indirectly imposing a vaccination, thus affecting the appellants’ legal sphere.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 458, p. 459.

(2)  OJ 2022 L 102, p. 8.

---