62000TO0236(02)_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
In Case T-236/00,
Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfratshausen (Germany),
Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Denmark),
Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen (Denmark),
Rijk van Dam, residing in Rotterdam (Netherlands),
Christopher Heaton-Harris, residing in Kettering Northants (United Kingdom),
Franz-Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-sur-l'Isar (Germany),
Ursula Schleicher, residing in Munich (Germany),
Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark),
Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (Netherlands),
Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
Michl Ebner, residing in Bolzano (Italy),
Joost Lagendijk, residing in Rotterdam,
Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium),
Franziska Emilia Müller, residing in Burck (Haut-Palatinat) (Germany),
Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern (Germany),
Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam,
Heide Rühle, residing in Stuttgart (Germany),
Inger Schöring, residing in Gävle (Sweden),
Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki (Finland),
Bart Staes, residing in Anvers (Belgium),
Claude Turmes, residing in Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg),
Lousewies van der Laan, residing in Brussels (Belgium),
represented by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicants,
v
European Parliament, represented by C. Pennera and M. Berger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
and
Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and X. Lewis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendants,
APPLICATION for the annulment of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on Relations between the European Parliament and the Commission (OJ 2001 C 121, p. 122),
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges,
Registrar: H. Jung,
makes the following
Order
Grounds
Legal framework
1 Since 1990, the provisions regulating institutional relations between the European Parliament and the Commission have been contained in a Code of Conduct (OJ 1995 C 89, p. 69).
2 In September 1999, a resolution of the European Parliament called for the early establishment of an Interinstitutional Agreement between the Commission and the Parliament as a Framework for a new Code of Conduct.
3 On 5 July 2000, the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission was adopted by a majority of the Members of the Parliament (hereinafter the Framework Agreement).
4 Point 1 of the Framework Agreement provides:
In order to update the code of conduct adopted in 1990 and amended in 1995, the two institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, to extend constructive dialogue and political cooperation, to improve the flow of information and to consult and inform the European Parliament on Commission administrative reforms. [The two institutions] also agree on a number of specific implementing measures (i) on the legislative process, (ii) on international agreements and enlargement, and (iii) on the forwarding of confidential Commission documents and information. These implementing measures are annexed to this Framework Agreement.
5 Point 17 of the Framework Agreement provides:
In connection with the annual discharge governed by Article [276 EC], the European Parliament and the Commission agree that the Commission shall forward all information necessary for supervising the implementation of the budget for the year in question, which the chairperson of the parliamentary committee responsible for the discharge procedure pursuant to Annex VI of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament requests from it for that purpose.
If new aspects come to light concerning previous years for which discharge has already been given, the Commission shall forward all the necessary information on the matter with a view to arriving at a solution which is acceptable to both sides.
6 According to point 29 of the Framework Agreement the specific measures of application of the Framework Agreement are dealt with in its annexes.
7 Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement concerns the forwarding of confidential information to the Parliament.
8 Point 1 of Annex 3 provides as follows:
1.1. This Annex shall govern the forwarding to the European Parliament and the handling of confidential information from the Commission in connection with the exercise of parliamentary prerogatives concerning the legislative and budgetary procedures, the procedure for giving discharge and the exercise in general terms of the European Parliament's powers of scrutiny. The two institutions shall act in accordance with their mutual duties of sincere cooperation and in a spirit of complete and mutual trust as well as in the strictest conformity with the relevant Treaty provisions, in particular Articles 6 [EU] and 46 [EU] and [276 EC].
1.2. "Information" shall mean any written or oral information, whatever the medium and whoever the author may be.
1.3. The Commission shall ensure that the European Parliament is given access to information, in accordance with the provisions of this Annex, whenever it receives from one of the parliamentary bodies set out in point 1.4 below a request relating to the forwarding of confidential information.
1.4. In the context of this Annex, the following may request confidential information from the Commission: the President of the European Parliament, the chairperson of the parliamentary committees concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents.
1.5. Information on infringement procedures and procedures relating to competition, in so far as they are not covered by a final Commission decision on the date when the request from one of the parliamentary bodies is received, shall be excluded from this Annex.
1.6 These provisions shall apply without prejudice to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament's right of inquiry and the relevant provisions of Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
9 The general rules on the forwarding of confidential information to the Parliament, and the arrangements for access to and the handling of such confidential information, are contained in points 2 and 3 respectively of Annex 3.
10 According to points 2.2 and 2.3 of Annex 3:
2.2. In the event of any doubt as to the confidential nature of an item of information, or where it is necessary to lay down the appropriate arrangements for it to be forwarded in accordance with one of the options set out in point 3.2 below, the chairperson of the appropriate parliamentary committee, accompanied, where necessary, by the rapporteur, shall consult the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for that area without delay.
In the event of a disagreement, the matter shall be referred to the Presidents of the two institutions so that they may resolve the dispute.
2.3. If, at the end of the procedure referred to in point 2.2 above, no agreement has been reached, the President of the European Parliament, in response to a reasoned request from the relevant parliamentary committee, shall call on the Commission to forward, within the appropriate deadline duly indicated, the confidential information in question, selecting the arrangements from among the options laid down in point 3 below. Before the expiry of that deadline, the Commission shall inform the European Parliament in writing of its final position, in respect of which the European Parliament reserves the right, if appropriate, to exercise its right to seek redress.
11 Finally, points 3.2 and 3.3 of that Annex provide as follows:
3.2. Without prejudice to the provisions of point 2.3 above, access and the arrangements designed to preserve the confidentiality of the information shall be laid down by common accord between the Member of the Commission with special responsibility for the area involved and the parliamentary body concerned, duly represented by its chairperson, who shall select one of the following options:
- information intended for the chairperson of and the rapporteur for the relevant parliamentary committee;
- restricted access to information for all members of the relevant parliamentary committee in accordance with the appropriate arrangements, possibly with the documents being collected after they have been studied and a ban on the making of copies;
- discussion in the relevant parliamentary committee, meeting in camera, in accordance with arrangements which may vary by virtue of the degree of confidentiality involved and in accordance with the principles set out in Annex VII to the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure [as adopted by decision of the European Parliament of 15 February 1989];
- communication of documents from which all personal details have been expunged;
- in instances justified on absolutely exceptional grounds, information intended for the President of the European Parliament alone.
The information in question may not be published or forwarded to any other addressee.
3.3. In the event of non-compliance with these arrangements, the provisions relating to sanctions set out in Annex VII to the European Parliament's Rules of Procedure shall apply.
12 Moreover, the third paragraph of Article 197 EC provides that [t]he Commission shall reply orally or in writing to questions put to it by the European Parliament or by its Members.
Procedure
13 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 7 September 2000, Mrs Stauner and 21 other Members of the European Parliament (hereinafter the applicants) brought an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC for the annulment of the Framework Agreement.
14 By a separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 22 September 2000, they also submitted an application under Article 242 EC for suspension of the application of paragraphs 17 and 29 of the Framework Agreement and of Annex 3 to that Agreement.
15 At the hearing on 25 October 2000, the President of the Court of First Instance called on the parties to consider settling the interim relief proceedings amicably by means of a declaration by each of the defendant institutions that, in essence, points 17 and 29 of and Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, concerning the forwarding of confidential information to the Parliament, are without prejudice to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
16 On 30 November 2000, the defendant institutions made it known to the President of the Court of First Instance that they had decided not to accept the proposal for an amicable settlement made during the interim relief proceedings.
17 By order of 15 January 2001 in Case T-236/00 R Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II-15 (hereinafter the Stauner I order) the President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for suspension as inadmissible and reserved the costs.
18 By separate documents lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 and 12 January 2001 respectively, the Parliament and the Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility on the basis of Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. The applicants lodged their observations on those objections on 3 April 2001.
19 By separate document lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 3 August 2001, Mrs Stauner and four other Members of the Parliament, applicants in the present action, submitted an application, under Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, for suspension of the application of points 3.2, first indent, and 3.3 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement and for the information contained in the documents that the Commission had sent to the Parliament on 9 February and 9 March 2001 to be sent to all members of the Committee on Budgetary Control.
20 By order of 8 October 2001 in Case T-236/00 R II Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II-2943 (hereinafter the Stauner II order), the President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the second application for interim relief and reserved the costs.
Forms of order sought
21 The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
- annul the Framework Agreement and, in particular, Annex 3 thereto.
- order the defendants to pay the costs.
22 In their objections of inadmissibility, the Parliament and the Commission contend that the Court of First Instance should:
- dismiss the application as inadmissible;
- order the applicants to pay the costs.
23 In their observations on the objections of inadmissibility, the applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
- dismiss the objections of inadmissibility;
- set new time-limits for further steps in the main proceedings;
- reserve the decision on costs for the final judgment in the main proceedings.
Admissibility
24 Under Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the remainder of the proceedings on the objection of inadmissibility shall be oral, unless the Court of First Instance otherwise decides. In the present case, the Court of First Instance considers that it has sufficient information from the documents before it and that there is no need to open the oral procedure.
Arguments of the parties
25 The Parliament and the Commission submit, first, that the Framework Agreement produced legal effects only vis-à-vis the contracting parties to that agreement and not vis-à-vis Members of the Parliament. Moreover, according to the Parliament, even assuming that the Framework Agreement does produce legal effects vis-à-vis the applicants, such effects are limited to those concerning the internal organisation of the Parliament's activities.
26 Second, the Parliament and the Commission submit that the Framework Agreement is not of direct or individual concern to the applicants.
27 First, according to the Parliament, the contested Agreement does not adversely affect the applicants' rights since, under point 3.2 of Annex 3, it requires implementation measures on access and on the arrangements for ensuring confidentiality of information. In that context, the bodies concerned enjoy a discretion that precludes those to whom the implementation measure is addressed from being directly concerned by the basic measure (Case 222/83 Commune de Differdange v Commission [1984] ECR 2889). The same applies, a fortiori, with regard to the sanctions to which the Members of the Parliament may be liable in the event of non-compliance with those arrangements. Those sanctions presuppose the existence of obligations laid down by the measures implementing the Framework Agreement in order to safeguard the confidentiality of certain documents.
28 In particular, the defendants submit that, contrary to the applicants' contentions, Ms Stauner, an applicant in the present case, is not directly concerned by the refusal by the member of the relevant committee, on 4 July 2000, to send to her certain confidential information since, first, that refusal predated the conclusion of the Framework Agreement and, secondly, Ms Stauner had tabled her question as a Member of the Parliament acting individually.
29 Second, the Commission and the Parliament contend that the contested measure is not of individual concern to the applicants in so far as the Framework Agreement is of concern to them only in the same way as it is of concern to all present or future Members of Parliament, that is to say as members of a group, the composition of which is subject to constant change. Furthermore, even if the number of the Members concerned could be determined, that would not be sufficient for the Framework Agreement to be of individual concern to them (Case 26/86 Deutz und Geldermann v Council [1987] ECR 941, paragraph 8 and Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and T-85/99 Ripa di Meana and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-3493, paragraph 28).
30 The applicants submit, first, that the Framework Agreement, and in particular Annex 3 thereto, produced legal effects vis-à-vis not only the contracting parties but also themselves.
31 First, it is not clearly apparent from the wording of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement that the right of the applicants to put questions to the Commission individually does not result from the Framework Agreement. Despite the silence of the text of the Framework Agreement, which does not expressly mention either the words Member of the Parliament or the rights of Members of the Parliament as individuals, some of its provisions refer to individual Members of the Parliament. Such is the case in point 3.2, first and second indents, of Annex 3, which refers to the Chairperson, to the rapporteurs and to the members of the relevant parliamentary committee who are, as individuals, Members of the Parliament. The same applies to point 3.3 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, from which it is clear that in the event of non-compliance with the arrangements for the handling of confidential information sanctions may be adopted not against a parliamentary committee as such but against individual Members of the Parliament.
32 Second, it is clear from the objective of the Framework Agreement that the subject of that agreement is the regulation in a binding and uniform manner of the forwarding by the Commission of confidential information to the Parliament and to parliamentary bodies and also of the handling of such information. Any other interpretation would deprive the Framework Agreement of all effect. In that regard, the applicants submit that Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement can be repealed at any time by Members of the Parliament acting individually if the Commission takes a course of action in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 197 EC. Any Member of the Parliament whether chairperson, rapporteur or simply a committee member can, in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1), put his questions to the Commission under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC without being subject to the restrictions on access to information laid down in point 3.2 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement. The Commission, in its turn, is obliged, when replying to those questions, to send confidential information to the Member concerned, who is not bound by the arrangements laid down in point 3.2 of Annex 3 regarding observance of the confidentiality of the information.
33 That view is confirmed by three factors. First, the defendants, in the course of the interlocutory proceedings giving rise to the Stauner I order, refused to make a declaration that the Framework Agreement applied without prejudice to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
34 Second, point 1.6 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement expressly provides that that annex applies without prejudice to Decision 95/167 and to the relevant provisions of Decision 1999/352. It follows, a contrario, that the right to put questions to the Commission pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC is not expressly excluded from the scope of the Framework Agreement and, accordingly, is a proper subject of that agreement.
35 Finally, it cannot be claimed that the Commission is not obliged to forward confidential information in response to a question put by a Member of the Parliament pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC. Such a restrictive assumption is not in conformity with that provision and infringes the status of Member of the European Parliament in the sense contemplated in Article 190 EC. Furthermore, it is contrary to the democratic traditions existing in the various Member States and incompatible with Article 287 EC which, by laying down an obligation of confidentiality, sufficiently protects, on this point, both the interests of individuals and the Community interest.
36 Third, the applicants submit that, should the Framework Agreement produce legal effects only vis-à-vis the Parliament as an institution, then that would lead to a separation of the right of supervision, established by the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, enjoyed by Members of the Parliament, acting individually, from that enjoyed by the Parliament as an institution, a separation which is not easily practicable and is incompatible with that article. In that regard, it is significant that the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament nowhere mention the Parliament in its entirety, as a questioning body, but refer only to committees, political groups or a certain number of Members of the Parliament (Article 42) or the individual Members of the Parliament in their individual capacity (Articles 43 and 44).
37 Fourth, by virtue of Article 186(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, the Framework Agreement is applicable within the Parliament and produces its effects vis-à-vis both the Parliament as an institution and each individual Member of the Parliament. It follows that any interpretation limiting the application of the Framework Agreement only to the Parliament as an institution is incompatible with Article 186(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament.
38 The applicants submit, in the second place, that, as Members of the Parliament, the Framework Agreement is of direct and individual concern to them with regard to their right to put questions to, and to monitor, the Commission as provided for in the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
39 The Framework Agreement is of direct concern to them since, de facto, it affects their interests sufficiently without having to be accompanied by supplementary implementing measures.
40 First, having regard to the procedure laid down by Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, that Agreement seeks, by its spirit and purpose, to channel and, consequently, to limit, the right of each Member of the Parliament to put questions to the Commission pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
41 Second, and contrary to the defendant institutions' contentions, the Framework Agreement does not confer an unlimited discretion either on the competent Member of the Commission or on the parliamentary body concerned as regards the dissemination of confidential information requested of the Commission and, therefore, does not preclude the applicants from being directly concerned by the Agreement. The first to fifth indents of point 3.2 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement provide for the forwarding of confidential information only to the President of the Parliament, or to the chairpersons and to the rapporteurs of the relevant parliamentary committees, and access can also be restricted for all the other members of the relevant parliamentary committee. That provision therefore has the effect of limiting the Commission's reporting obligation vis-à-vis Members of the Parliament in their individual capacity, in breach of the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
42 In that context, any refusal by the Commission, for reasons of confidentiality, to reply fully to a question put by a Member of the Parliament pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC would mean that the Framework Agreement applies to relations between the Commission and that Member of the Parliament as an individual. According to the applicants, that analysis is confirmed by the replies given by the Commission to various written questions put by Mrs Stauner, such as the question put in the course of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the 1998 budget and questions E-3240/00, E-3241/00, P-3748/00, E-4072/00 and P-0203/01.
43 Furthermore, it is apparent from point 3.3 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement that the latter leaves no margin of discretion to the authorities responsible for adopting the sanctions referred to in Annex VII to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament in the event of failure to comply with the arrangements concerning the confidentiality of information forwarded by the Commission.
44 Thirdly, and contrary to the Parliament's contentions, for a measure to be of direct concern to a person it is not necessary that the contested provisions be definitively and totally contained in the Community measure in question and that no discretion be left to the authority responsible for its implementation. On the contrary, such a direct link also exists where the measure in question leaves to that authority the choice between different courses of action for implementation, but where each possible course of action is necessarily unfavourable, to a greater or lesser degree, to the person to whom it is directed (Joined Cases 106/63 and 107/63 Töpfer v Commission [1965] ECR 525 and Case 11/82 Piraiki-Patraiki v Commission [1985] ECR 27, paragraph 7).
45 The applicants also contend that the Framework Agreement is of individual concern to them.
46 First, the Framework Agreement limits their right to put questions to the Commission in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, in so far as that right is subject to harsher restrictions where they are concerned than those imposed by the Parliament on itself as a party to the Framework Agreement.
47 Such restrictions are in conflict with Annex VII to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, which guarantees members of the relevant parliamentary committee and, in particular, of the Committee on Budgetary Control of which the applicants were official or substitute members, access to confidential documents forwarded by the Commission. According to the applicants, the Commission's practice has shown that the applicants had been denied access on several occasions to documents sent to the Parliament under the Framework Agreement, such as the audit report on the Berlaymont building, the audit report on the financial control of ECHO-Flight and the list of audit reports sent to the European Anti-Fraud Office in connection with the European development funds. Furthermore, the Commission's behaviour also infringes the right to equal treatment as between Members of the Parliament serving on the same committee, where some but not others of those Members have access to sensitive documents.
48 Next, the applicants are individually concerned because they make up a well-defined and clearly delimited group amounting to 626 persons in total, elected for a term of five years, in accordance with Article 190(2) and (3) EC (Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95).
49 Finally, the fact that the composition of the closed class of persons concerned to which the applicants belong can be changed is of importance only for the future. Accordingly, that fact is irrelevant with regard to the individualisation of the applicants. The decisive factor in that respect is that the applicants were members of such a class on the date on which the Framework Agreement was concluded. That approach is confirmed by the order of the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T-17/00 R Rothley and Others v Parliament [2000] ECR II-2085, paragraph 53.
Findings of the Court
50 As a preliminary point, the Court would recall that the European Community is based on the rule of law, inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the question whether their acts are in conformity with the basic constitutional charter, the Treaty, which established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to enable the Court of Justice to review the legality of acts of the institutions (Case 294/83 Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, paragraph 23; Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, paragraph 16; Case C-314/91 Weber v Parliament [1993] ECR I-1093, paragraph 8 and the order of the Court in Case C-2/88 Imm. Zwartveld and Others [1990] ECR I-3365, paragraph 16; Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001] ECR II-2823, paragraph 48; see also decision of the Court of Justice of 14 December 1991, Case 1/91 ECR I-6079, paragraph 21).
51 In that regard, the first paragraph of Article 230 EC provides that the Community judicature is to control the legality of acts of the Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.
52 In the present case, the application challenges the legality of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on Relations between the European Parliament and the Commission.
53 It should first be noted that the Framework Agreement, concluded between the Commission and the Parliament, was adopted on 5 July 2000 by the majority of the Members of the Parliament and must therefore be regarded, for the purposes of admissibility, as an act of the Parliament itself (the Stauner I order, paragraph 44; see, by analogy, Les Verts v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 20 and the order in Rothley and Others v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 48).
54 Second, it must be noted that, with regard to the admissibility of an application for annulment of an act of the Parliament, the first paragraph of Article 230 EC calls for a distinction to be made between two categories of acts.
55 Acts of the Parliament which relate only to the internal organisation of its work cannot be challenged in an action for annulment (orders of the Court of Justice in Case 78/85 Group of European Right v Parliament [1986] ECR 1753, paragraph 11, and Case C-68/90 Blot and Front national v Parliament [1990] ECR I-2101, paragraphs 11 and 12; judgment in Weber v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 9). That first category of measures includes acts of the Parliament which either do not produce legal effects or do so only within the Parliament as regards the organisation of its work and are subject to review procedures laid down in its Rules of Procedure (Weber v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 10 and Martinez and Others v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 52).
56 By contrast, acts of the Parliament which produce or are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties may be the subject of an action for annulment (see Weber v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 11; Martinez and Others v Parliament, cited above, paragraph 53).
57 In that regard, it must nevertheless be noted that, according to settled case-law, measures that produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by significantly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment under Article 230 EC may be brought (Case 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR I-2639, paragraph 9 and order of the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T-353/00 R Le Pen v Parliament [2001] ECR II-125, paragraph 61).
58 In the present case, the applicants submit, in substance, that the Framework Agreement deprives the Members of the Parliament, acting as individuals, of even the possibility of requesting the Commission, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, to send them confidential information, so that their legal position is altered.
59 It must be observed, however, that, as the President of the Court of First Instance pointed out at paragraph 48 of the Stauner I order, it is apparent from the wording of the provisions of the Framework Agreement, in particular point 1 thereof and points 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex 3 thereto, confirmed in this respect by the circumstances in which that agreement was concluded and which clarify its purpose, that the aim of the agreement is not to limit the right of Members of the Parliament individually to put questions to the Commission, but merely to enable the Parliament to exercise wider powers of scrutiny over the Commission's activities by obtaining from that institution confidential information, the communication of which had not previously been regulated.
60 The fact that the Framework Agreement provides that certain information may be supplied only to the parliamentary bodies referred to in point 1.4 of Annex 3 thereto - namely the President of the European Parliament, the chairperson of the parliamentary committee concerned, the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents - does not deprive Members of the Parliament, acting individually, of their right to put questions to the Commission and receive from that institution replies involving, where necessary, the forwarding of confidential information, as was the case before the adoption of the Framework Agreement. In that respect, it should be noted that the Commission's discretion in deciding whether to communicate confidential information in its reply to a question put by a Member of the Parliament acting individually, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, is not governed, even indirectly, by the Framework Agreement (the Stauner I order, paragraph 49).
61 Thus, the Framework Agreement provides for an additional mechanism, distinct from that concerning the right of Members of the Parliament to put questions to the Commission under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, and permits, contrary to what would have been the case before the adoption of the Framework Agreement, the forwarding of confidential information to certain parliamentary bodies. In effect, where a request for confidential information comes from one of the bodies referred to in point 1.4 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, the forwarding of that information by the Commission is henceforth governed by the provisions of the Framework Agreement.
62 It follows that the Framework Agreement, which is limited to governing relations between the Commission and the Parliament, does not alter the legal position of Members of the Parliament, acting individually, as regards their right under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC and does not impair that right, which is guaranteed by that provision (Stauner I order, paragraph 51, and Stauner II order, paragraph 50).
63 In those circumstances, the applicants' argument to the effect that the Framework Agreement is a product of a separation of the right of supervision arising from the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, of Members of the Parliament, acting individually, on the one hand, and of the Parliament as an institution, on the other hand, which is not easily practicable and incompatible with that provision, is founded on erroneous assumptions and must be rejected. The Framework Agreement regulates the forwarding of confidential information following requests from the bodies referred to in point 1.4 of Annex 3 to that Agreement, without calling into question the rights of Members of the Parliament under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC.
64 Furthermore, the applicants' argument to the effect that the defendants' refusal, in the course of the interlocutory proceedings that gave rise to the Stauner I order, to provide a declaration admitting that the Framework Agreement and Annex 3 thereto are without prejudice to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 197 EC shows that that Agreement affects the right of the Members of the Parliament to put questions individually and to request confidential information from the Commission, must be rejected. The refusal to make such a declaration cannot, of itself, alter either the scope or the purpose of the Framework Agreement.
65 Finally, the same holds true as regards the argument based on point 1.6 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, which provides that the provisions of that Agreement are to operate without prejudice to Decision 95/167 and the relevant provisions of Decision 1999/352. That provision of the Framework Agreement, which, as the applicants admit, introduces certain restrictions on the scope of the rules of the Framework Agreement concerning the forwarding of confidential information to the European Parliament, does not imply that the right of its Members to put questions individually to the Commission under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC is properly a subject of the Framework Agreement, since, as already stated, the right in question does not fall within the scope of that agreement.
66 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Framework Agreement, adopted by the Parliament on 5 July 2000, does not alter the conditions for the performance by the applicants of their parliamentary duties and therefore does not produce legal effects of a nature such as to affect their interests. Consequently, the present application must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Decision on costs
Costs
67 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, as applied for by the Parliament and the Commission.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.