61985CO0078_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 78/85
GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT, A POLITICAL GROUP WITHIN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, JEAN-MARIE LE PEN, A MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ALBERT SCHMIT, 6 RUE DICKS,
APPLICANT,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY FRANCESCO PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA, DIRECTOR GENERAL, ACTING AS AGENT,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1984 FINDING ADMISSIBLE THE MOTION FOR THE SETTING UP OF A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE RISE OF FASCISM AND RACISM IN EUROPE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY IS VOID,
Grounds
1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 1 APRIL 1985, JEAN-MARIE LE PEN, REPRESENTING THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT, A POLITICAL GROUP FORMED WITHIN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FROM THE MEMBERS ELECTED ON THE LISTS OF THE ' FRONT D ' OPPOSITION NATIONALE POUR L ' EUROPE DES PATRIES ', THE ' MOVIMENTO SOCIALE ITALIANO - DESTRA NAZIONALE '
AND THE GREEK EPEN, BROUGHT AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A DECISION TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1984 IN THE COURSE OF A MEETING OF THE BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IS VOID . BY THAT DECISION THE PRESIDENT FOUND THAT THE MOTION, SIGNED BY 113 MEMBERS, FOR THE SETTING UP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 95 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1981, C 90, P . 49 ), OF A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE RISE OF FASCISM AND RACISM IN EUROPE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY WAS ADMISSIBLE .
2 THAT APPLICATION FAILS TO IDENTIFY THE PROVISION OF THE TREATIES ON WHICH IT IS BASED . IN ADDITION, NOTICE WAS GIVEN THEREIN THAT A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION WOULD BE SUBMITTED FORTHWITH PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 157 OF THE EAEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 39 OF THE ECSC TREATY . HOWEVER, THE COURT DID NOT RECEIVE A SECOND APPLICATION .
3 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY IN QUESTION WAS SET UP AND PRESENTED ITS FINDINGS ON 25 NOVEMBER 1985 IN A FINAL REPORT ( EP, WORKING DOCUMENT, 1985-86, SERIES A, DOC . A2-160/85 ), AS A RESULT OF WHICH A RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED ON 16 JANUARY 1986 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1986, C 36, P . 142 ).
4 RULE 95 ( 1 ) OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT ' PARLIAMENT SHALL, ON A MOTION BY ONE QUARTER OF ITS MEMBERS AND WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY REFERRING THE MOTION TO ANOTHER COMMITTEE, SET UP A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY TO INVESTIGATE SPECIFIC MATTERS . THE MOTION SHALL INDICATE THE MATTER TO BE INVESTIGATED WHICH MUST FALL WITHIN THE SPHERE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMUNITIES ' . ACCORDING TO THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO THAT RULE BY THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS, ' ON A MOTION BY ONE QUARTER OF ITS MEMBERS, PARLIAMENT SHALL AUTOMATICALLY SET UP A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ; SUCH A MOTION NEED NOT BE PUT TO THE VOTE IN THE HOUSE ' . IN THE VIEW OF THAT COMMITTEE, IT IS FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO DECIDE WHETHER A MOTION FOR THE SETTING UP OF A COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY FULFILS THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN RULE 95 ( 1 ).
5 IN SUPPORT OF ITS ACTION, THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT CLAIMS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IS CONTRARY TO RULE 95 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :
( I ) SINCE IT WAS NOT SET UP TO ' INVESTIGATE SPECIFIC MATTERS '
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION, THE COMMITTEE IS NOT A PROPERLY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY ;
( II ) THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INQUIRY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ;
( III ) THE AIM OF THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY IS DISCRIMINATORY IN RELATION TO A MINORITY GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .
6 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY IN RESPECT OF THE ACTION AND, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, REQUESTED THE COURT TO RULE ON THAT OBJECTION WITHOUT HEARING ARGUMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
7 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONTENDS IN THAT RESPECT THAT THE ACTION, THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO IDENTIFY, CLEARLY CANNOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY . IN THE PARLIAMENT ' S VIEW IT IS MOREOVER INADMISSIBLE UNDER ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY OR ARTICLE 146 OF THE EAEC TREATY SINCE THE REVIEW OF LEGALITY PROVIDED FOR IN THOSE PROVISIONS CAN PERTAIN ONLY TO ACTS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION .
8 THE APPLICANT REPLIES TO THAT ARGUMENT BY REFERRING TO ARTICLES 164 OF THE EEC TREATY, 136 OF THE EAEC TREATY AND 31 OF THE ECSC TREATY . IT ARGUES THAT TO ALLOW THE OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PREVENTING ANY REVIEW BY THE COURT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EXCEPT WHERE AN ACTION IS BROUGHT BY A MEMBER STATE OR THE COMMISSION ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WOULD HAVE COMPLETE FREEDOM TO CONCERN ITSELF WITH ANY SUBJECT WHATSOVER, EVEN MATTERS ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COMMUNITY TREATIES . IT COULD EVEN SET UP COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY INTO THE PRIVATE LIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THOSE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
9 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 92 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME OF ITS OWN MOTION CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH A CASE AND DISMISS THE ACTION WITHOUT HEARING THE ORAL ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES, IF IT CONSIDERS THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE IT ALREADY CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE A RULING .
10 NATURAL AND LEGAL PERSONS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTEST AN ACT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT UNDER ARTICLE 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY . ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS IN PRINCIPLE OPEN TO SUCH PERSONS TO BRING AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY UNDER ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY AGAINST ACTS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WHICH ARE INTENDED TO PRODUCE LEGAL EFFECTS VIS-A-VIS THIRD PARTIES, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE JUDGMENT OF 23 APRIL 1986 ( CASE 294/83 PARTI ECOLOGISTE ' LES VERTS '
V EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 1986 ) ECR 1339 ). THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS APPLICATION MUST THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THAT PROVISION .
11 WITHOUT ITS EVEN BEING NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS IN FACT BROUGHT WITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173, THE COURT FINDS THAT IT IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE ACT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WHICH IS CONTESTED IS NOT SUCH AS TO PRODUCE LEGAL EFFECTS VIS-A-VIS THIRD PARTIES . THE COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY WHICH MAY BE SET UP ON A MOTION UNDER RULE 95 OF THE PARLIAMENT ' S RULES OF PROCEDURE HAVE ONLY INVESTIGATIVE POWERS AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ACTS RELATING TO THEIR SETTING UP CONCERN ONLY THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
AFTER HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR AND THE VIEWS OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE ;
( 2 ) THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .