Order — ECLI:EU:T:2000:119
Date: 2000-05-02
Language of the case: German
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures;General
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - successful
Origin: Austria;Belgium;Germany;Italy

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of 
the main application — Irrelevant — Limits 
(Arts 242 and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), 
second subparagraph) 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts adopted by the Parliament 
intended to produce legal effects outwith the Parliament itself 
(Art. 230 EC) 
II - 2085 
SUMMARY — CASE T-17/00 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim 
measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Measure of 
the Parliament amending its rules and liable to infringe Parliamentary immunity 
(Arts 242 and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
1. In principle the issue of the admissi­
bility of the main action should not be 
examined in proceedings for interim 
relief so as not to prejudge the sub­
stance of that case. It may, however, 
prove necessary, where it is contended 
that the main application from which 
the application for interim relief is 
derived is manifestly inadmissible, to 
establish the existence of certain fac­
tors which would justify the prima 
facie conclusion that such an action is 
admissible. 
(see para. 45) 
2. The purpose of the first paragraph of 
Article 230 EC, which provides that 
the Court of Justice is to review, inter 
alia, the legality of acts of the Parlia­
ment intended to produce legal effects 
vis-à-vis third parties, is to make it 
possible to submit to review by the 
Community judicature measures 
adopted by the Parliament within the 
sphere of the EC Treaty which might 
encroach on the powers of the Member 
States or of the other institutions or 
exceed the limits which have been set 
to that institution's powers. On the 
other hand, measures affecting only the 
internal organisation of the work of the 
Parliament cannot be the subject of an 
action for annulment. That class of 
measures includes measures adopted by 
the Parliament which either do not 
have legal effects or have legal effects 
only within the Parliament as regards 
the organisation of its work and are 
subject to review procedures estab­
lished by its Rules of Procedure. 
(see para. 46) 
3. The urgency of an application for 
interim measures must be assessed in 
relation to the necessity for an interim 
order to prevent serious and irrepar­
able harm to the party applying for 
those measures. It is for that party to 
prove that it cannot wait for the out­
come of the main action without suf­
fering harm of that nature. 
If the agents of the European Anti-
Fraud Office were to initiate an inter­
nal investigation concerning a member 
of the European Parliament and 
assume custody of documents or infor­
mation in his office, in accordance with 
A r t i c l e 4 ( 2 ) of R e g u l a t i o n 
No 1073/99, in his absence or without 
having previously obtained his consent, 
as Article 5 of the Parliament decision 
II - 2086 
ROTHLEY AND OTHERS V PARLIAMENT 
concerning the conditions and proce­
dure for internal investigations in rela­
tion to the prevention of fraud, corrup­
tion and any illegal activity detrimental 
to the interests of the Community 
apparently permits in certain circum­
stances, the risk that his immunity as a 
member of the Parliament would be 
infringed would seem to be foreseeable 
with a sufficient degree of probability. 
Since the Parliament has not inter­
preted the decision amending its Rules 
of Procedure pursuant to the inter-
institutional agreement concerning 
internal investigations carried out by 
the Office as requiring the Parliament, 
where the Office intends to take action 
against members, immediately to 
inform the members concerned, to · 
refuse the Office access to members' 
offices in the members' absence and to 
ensure that the Office cannot gain 
access to the members' offices without 
their consent, the exercise of the 
powers conferred on the Office entails 
the risk that the immunity enjoyed by 
every member of the Parliament will be 
infringed. The materialisation of that 
risk cannot subsequently be repaired by 
annulment of the decision amending its 
rules of procedure. 
Furthermore, the duties to cooperate 
and to supply information imposed on 
the members of the European Parlia­
ment, as provided for by the decision of 
the Parliament concerning the condi­
tions and procedure for internal inves­
tigations, risk infringing their parlia­
mentary immunity. In the absence of 
any contrary provision in that decision 
amending its Rules of Procedure, the 
duty to cooperate fully with the Office 
must be complied with by members 
when agents of the Office carry out 
internal investigations within the Par­
liament. Compliance with the duty to 
cooperate fully with the Office might 
therefore mean that the member must 
authorise access to his office and per­
mit the Office to assume custody of 
documents and information in order to 
ensure that there is no danger of their 
disappearing, as it is permitted to do by 
Article 4(2). As regards the duty to 
inform the President of the Parliament 
or, if members consider it useful, the 
Office direct, compliance by members 
of the Parliament is liable to constitute 
a preliminary to an internal investiga­
tion conducted by the Office concern­
ing one of them. The exercise of the 
powers conferred on the Office there­
fore entails the risk of infringing par­
liamentary immunity. 
(see paras 103, 107-110) 
II - 2087