Order (extracts);Order;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2021:216
Date: 2021-04-27
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for damages - inadmissible;Application for interim measures - inadmissible;Action for failure to act - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Case T‑719/20 (publication by extracts) Roberto Alejandro Macías Chávez and Others v Kingdom of Spain and European Parliament Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 27 April 2021 ( Action for failure to act and for damages – Institutional law – Parliament’s Committee on Petitions – Petition concerning the infringement by the Spanish courts of EU law in the field of fundamental rights – Decision to declare the petition closed – Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure – Request for referral to a Chamber sitting in extended composition – Action in part brought before a court or tribunal manifestly lacking jurisdiction to hear it, in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law ) 1. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Petition to the European Parliament concerning the infringement by national courts of EU law in the field of fundamental rights – Request for referral to a Chamber sitting in extended composition – Proposal by the Chamber hearing the case, by the President or by the Vice-President of the General Court – Discretionary referral – Criteria for application – Legal difficulty, importance or special circumstances of the case – None (Art. 265 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 28(1) and (2)) (see paragraphs 12-16) 2. Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Petition to the European Parliament concerning the infringement by national courts of Union law on fundamental rights – Request for referral to a Chamber sitting in extended composition – Proposal by the Chamber hearing the case, by the President or by the Vice-President of the General Court – Discretionary referral – Criteria for application – Legal difficulty, importance or special circumstances of the case – None (Art. 268 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 28(1) and (2)) (see paragraphs 12-16) 3. Actions for failure to act – Failure to act – Meaning – Measure not considered satisfactory – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament declaring a petition closed after its examination – Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paragraphs 27-30) 4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament declaring a petition closed after its examination, without taking the action desired by the applicants – Absence of a measure or unlawful conduct attributable to that institution – Not permissible (Art. 268 TFEU) (see paragraph 40) Résumé Three Spanish nationals, R.A. Macías Chávez, F. Presencia, J.M. Castillejo (‘the applicants’) submitted a petition to the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament (‘the Committee’) concerning the infringement by the Spanish courts of EU law in the field of fundamental rights. After examining that petition, the Committee took the decision to declare it closed. The applicants, first, brought an action before the Court under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament had unlawfully failed to act on their petition and, second, made a claim based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants from that as well as from the conduct of the Kingdom of Spain. By its order, the Court sets out, in the context of the examination of the request to refer the case back to a Chamber sitting in extended composition, the position adopted by each of the entities with jurisdiction to propose such a referral, that is to say, the President of the General Court, the Vice-President of the General Court and the Chamber hearing the case, respectively. It concludes that the action should be dismissed in part as being brought before a court or tribunal manifestly lacking jurisdiction to hear it, in part as being manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. Findings of the Court First of all, the Court recalls that referral of a case to a Chamber sitting in extended composition is an option and not an obligation, the use of which is subject to the criteria defined in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. (1) In this case, neither the President nor the Vice-President of the General Court considered exercising that option. The Chamber hearing the case, for its part, considers that none of the criteria justifying the referral of a case to a Chamber sitting in extended composition, mentioned in Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, (2) has been satisfied. The case-law on which the present order relies is well established and the applicants do not claim any legal difficulty justifying its being called into question. In addition, the fact that an institution and a Member State may be criticised in relation to fundamental rights, even those deemed ‘absolute’, does not constitute a special circumstance as such and does not confer significant weight on the case. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is no need to grant the request for referral to a Chamber sitting in extended composition submitted by the applicants. The Court next recalls that an application for interim measures must be made by a separate document. (3) Accordingly, it dismisses as manifestly inadmissible the application for interim measures made by the applicants in the application. Moreover, as regards the request for failure to act directed against the Parliament, (4) the Court finds, first, that the Committee in no way failed to rule on the petition submitted by the applicants, but, on the contrary, considered the petition to be admissible and took a position, deciding to declare it closed after having examined it. Second, it recalls that natural and legal persons may bring an action for failure to act against an institution only where that institution has failed to adopt a measure the legality of which those persons would be entitled to challenge by means of an action for annulment. In that respect, the Court emphasises that the Parliament has a broad discretion, of a political nature, as regards how that petition should be dealt with and that, accordingly, a decision taken in that regard is not a challengeable act and is beyond the scope of judicial review. Therefore, the Committee’s decision to declare the applicants’ petition closed does not constitute a challengeable act and, as a result, is beyond the scope of judicial review. For the same reason, the fact that, by that decision, the Committee did not take the action desired by the applicants on the petition cannot be challenged by means of an application for failure to act. Finally, the Court rules, first, that it is not necessary to grant the request of the applicants seeking to obtain compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the follow-up by the Parliament on their petition. It emphasises that, since it is unable to find that a failure to act can be attributed to that institution, the non-contractual liability of the European Union cannot be engaged. Second, the Court recalls that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear actions brought by natural or legal persons against Member States and thus claims directed against the Kingdom of Spain, whether they be claims seeking an order that that Member State pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of acts carried out by the Spanish courts or those seeking the adoption of declarations and control measures concerning that Member State. 1 Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that, ‘whenever the legal difficulty or the importance of the case or special circumstances so justify, a case may be referred to the Grand Chamber or to a Chamber sitting with a different number of Judges’. Paragraph 2 of that article reads as follows: ‘The Chamber seised of the case, the Vice-President of the General Court or the President of the General Court may, at any stage in the proceedings, either of its or his own motion or at the request of a main party, propose to the plenum that the case be referred as provided for in paragraph 1.’ 2 Article 28(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 3 Article 156(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 4 Third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU.