Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2003:112
Date: 2003-04-10
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Concepts: General
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Admissibility of 
the main action — Immaterial — Limits 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(1), first para.) 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures having binding legal 
effects — Measure taken by the President of the Parliament on its behalf 
(Art. 230 EC; Act concerning the election of representatives to the European 
Parliament by direct universal suffrage Art. 12(2)) 
II - 125 
SUMMARY — CASE T-353/00 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Conditions of 
granting — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable damage — Act of the 
Parliament disqualifying one of its members from office 
(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, 
Art. 104(2)) 
4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation —• Suspension of the 
implementation of an act of the Parliament disqualifying one of its members from 
office — Balancing of the interests at issue 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
1. The problem of the admissibility of the 
main action must not, as a rule, be 
examined in the course of interim relief 
proceedings because of the risk of pre­
judging the main action. Such exam­
ination may, however, prove to be 
necessary, where the manifest inadmis­
sibility of the main application to 
which the application for interim relief 
is related has been raised, to establish 
whether certain factors exist that 
would allow the conclusion, prima 
facie, that the main application is 
admissible. 
(see para. 58) 
2. Measures producing binding legal 
effects affecting the interests of the 
applicant by bringing about a distinct 
change in his legal position are acts and 
decisions capable of being the subject 
of an action for annulment within the 
meaning of Article 230 EC. By con­
trast, the form in which such acts or 
decisions are adopted, is, in principle, 
irrelevant as regards the possibility of 
challenging them by such an action. 
The fact that an act was adopted, not 
by the Parliament, but by its President 
on behalf of the Parliament, does not 
affect the question whether the appli­
cant may challenge its validity, inas­
much as it produces binding legal 
effects. 
(see para. 61) 
3. The argument that the Parliament's 
role in the context of a procedure for 
the disqualification of one of its mem­
bers from holding office based on 
Article 12(2) of the 1976 Act is not 
restricted to an instance of a compe­
tence in the exercise of which there is 
no scope for discretion is a serious one 
and cannot prima facia be discounted. 
The urgency of an application for 
interim relief is to be determined by 
reference to the need for an interim 
ruling in order to avoid serious and 
irreparable harm to the party seeking 
the interim relief. The burden of proof 
is on the applicant to demonstrate that 
he cannot wait for the resolution of the 
main proceedings without suffering 
harm of that kind. Given that the term 
of office of a member of the Parliament 
II - 126 
LE PEN v PARLIAMENT 
is restricted to five years and that the 
disqualification of the applicant from 
holding office as a result of a measure 
taken by the Parliament makes it 
impossible for him to carry out his 
duties as a Member of the European 
Parliament, it is clear that, if the 
contested act is annulled by the Court 
in the main proceedings, the harm 
suffered by the applicant would be 
irreparable in the absence of suspen­
sion of the operation of that act. 
(see paras 63, 85, 95-96) 
4. Where, when hearing an application 
for the suspension of operation of an 
act, the Court weighs up the competing 
interests, it must determine whether the 
possible annulment of the contested act 
by the Court in the proceedings on the 
merits would make it possible to 
reverse the situation brought about by 
the immediate implementation of that 
act and, conversely, whether the sus­
pension of its operation would be such 
as to prevent it from being fully 
effective in the event of the main 
application being dismissed. 
Whilst it is undeniably in the general 
interest that the composition of the 
Parliament be in accordance with 
Community law, it is also in the general 
interest that its members be allowed to 
carry out the duties entrusted to them 
by their electors for the entire duration 
of their term of office, unless that term 
is brought to an end in conformity with 
the applicable rules of law. The general 
interest of the Parliament in the main­
tenance of the application of a mem­
ber's disqualification from holding 
office pursuant to national law cannot, 
in view of all the ensuing unfavourable 
consequences for that member, prevail 
over the specific interest of the member 
in resuming his seat in the Parliament 
and his public duties until the decision 
of the Court on the substance of the 
case in the main proceedings, unless the 
Parliament takes note of the disqualifi­
cation in accordance with the rules laid 
down by Community law. However 
important may be the French Repub­
lic's interest in having its electoral 
legislation respected by the Parliament, 
such an interest is still of a general 
nature and cannot prevail over the 
immediate and specific interest of the 
member concerned. 
(see paras 100-104) 
II - 127