Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2001:242
Date: 2001-10-02
Language of the case: French;Italian
Court formation: Third Chamber, Extended Composition
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Concepts: Parliament;General;Pleas in law;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;Principle of equality and non-discrimination;Measures in respect of which a plea of illegality may be raised;Principle of proportionality;Freedom of association
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Belgium;France;Italy

Summary of the Order 
1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of 
the main application — Irrelevant — Limits 
(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts adopted by the European 
Parliament intended to produce legal effects outwith the Parliament itself 
(Art. 230 EC) 
II - 3397 
SUMMARY — CASE T-222/99 R 
3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — 
Suspension of operation of an act adopted by the European Parliament concerning 
the interpretation of one of its Rules of Procedure — Certain Members prevented from 
belonging to a political group — Serious and irreparable damage — Balancing of all 
the interests at stake 
(Art. 242 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 application should 
not be examined in proceedings relat­
ing to an application for interim mea­
sures so as not to prejudge the sub­
stance of that case. Where, however, it 
is contended that the main application 
from which the application for interim 
measures is derived is manifestly inad­
missible, it may prove necessary to 
establish the existence of certain fac­
tors which would justify the prima 
facie conclusion that the main applica­
tion is admissible. 
2. The first paragraph of Article 230 EC, 
which provides that the Court of 
Justice is to review, in particular, the 
legality of acts adopted by the Eur­
opean Parliament which are intended 
to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third 
parties, is designed to subject to review 
by the Community judicature measures 
adopted by the Parliament in the con­
text 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 the Parliament's powers. On the 
other hand, measures which relate only 
to the internal organisation of the work 
of the Parliament cannot be challenged 
in an action for annulment. This cate­
gory also includes acts of the European 
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 laid down in its 
Rules of Procedure. 
3. The purpose of proceedings for interim 
relief is to ensure that the judgment on 
the substance has full effect. In order to 
attain that objective the measures 
sought must be urgent in the sense that 
it is necessary, in order to avoid serious 
and irreparable damage to the interests 
of the applicant, that the measures 
should be ordered and should take 
effect before the judgment in the main 
proceedings. 
Serious damage is liable to be caused to 
Members of the European Parliament 
by the failure to suspend operation of a 
measure adopted by the Parliament 
concerning the interpretation of one 
of its rules of Procedure, where this 
prevents those Members from belong­
ing to a political group, thus making it 
impossible for them to enjoy the rights 
and advantages conferred on political 
groups and thus unable to speak as 
representatives of the citizens of the 
Member States of the Community 
under the same conditions as Members 
who belong to a political group. The 
damage is all the more serious because 
II - 3398 
MARTINEZ AND DE GAULLE V PARLIAMENT 
the time taken to investigate and dis­
pose of the case in the main proceed­
ings, time during which it cannot be 
ruled out that the applicants might 
suffer discrimination, may represent a 
not insignificant portion of their lim­
ited term of office. Such damage is also 
irreparable in that even if the measure 
in question is annulled at the end of the 
main proceedings this will not remedy 
the situation. 
Moreover, suspension of the operation 
of that measure — in so far as it would 
have the effect of enabling the group in 
question to receive the same treatment 
as other mixed groups — could not 
adversely affect the organisation of the 
work of the European Parliament. 
II - 3399