Order;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2026:121
Date: 2026-02-12
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Action for failure to act

Case T‑404/25 Miguel Ángel Navarro Fernández v European Parliament Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2026 ( Action for failure to act – Application for an order – Application for interim measures – Applicant not represented – Failure to put in order – Manifest inadmissibility ) Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Status of a third party in relation to the parties – Self-representation by an applicant who is authorised to plead before a national court – Not permissible – Obligation of the General Court to warn the applicant of the irregularity – Regularisation possible by the appointment of a new lawyer – Requirement not met – Manifest inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third and fourth paras, and 53) (see paragraphs 4-6, 8, 11) Résumé In an action for a failure to act, accompanied by applications for an order and for interim measures, the General Court applies the new line of case-law of the Court of Justice (1) which provides clarification on the scope of the prohibition on non-privileged parties representing themselves before the Courts of the European Union. The applicant brought an action before the General Court based, primarily, on the unlawful failure to act on the part of the European Parliament with a view to inducing the European Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against Spain on account of the ongoing deterioration of a Natura 2000 Network site located in Arganda del Rey (Spain). In reliance on his status as a lawyer authorised to plead before the Spanish courts, the applicant brought that action under his signature alone. Findings of the General Court The General Court points out that the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union lays down two separate and cumulative conditions as regards the representation before the Courts of the European Union of parties not covered by the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 of that statute, (2) known as ‘non-privileged’ parties. The first condition lays down the requirement for those parties to be ‘represented by a lawyer’ (3) and, according to the second condition, only a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) may represent or assist a party before the Courts of the European Union. (4) In that regard, the General Court states that it is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the first condition imposes a prohibition on non-privileged parties from representing themselves before the Courts of the European Union. Therefore, since no derogation from or exception to that prohibition is provided for by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice or of the General Court, the submission of an application signed by an applicant himself or herself cannot suffice to bring an action before the Courts of the European Union, including where that party is a lawyer authorised to plead before a national court. The General Court adds however that it is also clear from recent case-law that, in view of the seriousness of the consequences which flow from an infringement of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the applicant, namely the irremediable inadmissibility of his or her action, and in the absence of express indications to the contrary in the Statute and Rules of Procedure, it must, where it finds non-compliance with the prohibition on representing oneself, invite the applicant to designate a new lawyer before declaring the action inadmissible. In view of the fact that, in the present case, despite two requests for regularisation made by the General Court, the applicant failed to appoint a new lawyer within the specified time limit, the General Court dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible. 1 New line of case-law adopted by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 4 September 2025, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO (C‑776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644), since then applied in the order of the Vice-President of the Court of 30 October 2025, Arasteh v Commission (C‑590/25 P(R), not published, EU:C:2025:861). 2 The parties covered by the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union are the Member States, the institutions of the European Union, the States which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and the EFTA Surveillance Authority. 3 Third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. 4 Fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.