Case C‑261/13 P

Peter Schönberger

v

European Parliament

‛Appeal — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to file the petition — Action for annulment — Concept of a ‘challengeable act’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 9 December 2014

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions on the action to be taken on a petition declared admissible — Parliament’s discretion of a political nature — Exclusion from the concept

(Arts 20(2)(d) TFEU, 24 TFEU, 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Arts 215 to 217)

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Court is required to review the legality of acts of the Parliament which are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. Acts the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment.

A decision by which the Parliament considers that a petition addressed to it does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU must be amenable to judicial review, since it is liable to affect the right of petition of the person concerned. The same applies to a decision by which the Parliament, disregarding the very essence of the right of petition, refuses to consider, or refrains from considering, a petition addressed to it and, consequently, fails to verify whether it meets the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU.

A negative decision by which the Parliament takes the view that the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU have not been met must provide a sufficient statement of reasons to allow the petitioner to know which of those conditions was not met in his case. In that respect, that requirement is satisfied by a summary statement of reasons.

By contrast, it is clear from the provisions of the TFEU and from the rules adopted by the Parliament for the organisation of the right of petition laid down in Rules 215 to 217 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament that, where the Parliament takes the view that a petition meets the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU, it has a broad discretion, of a political nature, as regards how that petition should be dealt with. It follows that a decision taken in that regard is not amenable to judicial review, regardless of whether, by that decision, the Parliament itself takes the appropriate measures or considers that it is unable to do so and refers the petition to the competent institution or department so that that institution or department may take those measures.

(see paras 13, 22-24)

Case C‑261/13 P

Peter Schönberger

v

European Parliament

‛Appeal — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to file the petition — Action for annulment — Concept of a ‘challengeable act’’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 9 December 2014

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions on the action to be taken on a petition declared admissible — Parliament’s discretion of a political nature — Exclusion from the concept

(Arts 20(2)(d) TFEU, 24 TFEU, 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Arts 215 to 217)

Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Court is required to review the legality of acts of the Parliament which are intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. Acts the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment.

A decision by which the Parliament considers that a petition addressed to it does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU must be amenable to judicial review, since it is liable to affect the right of petition of the person concerned. The same applies to a decision by which the Parliament, disregarding the very essence of the right of petition, refuses to consider, or refrains from considering, a petition addressed to it and, consequently, fails to verify whether it meets the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU.

A negative decision by which the Parliament takes the view that the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU have not been met must provide a sufficient statement of reasons to allow the petitioner to know which of those conditions was not met in his case. In that respect, that requirement is satisfied by a summary statement of reasons.

By contrast, it is clear from the provisions of the TFEU and from the rules adopted by the Parliament for the organisation of the right of petition laid down in Rules 215 to 217 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament that, where the Parliament takes the view that a petition meets the conditions laid down in Article 227 TFEU, it has a broad discretion, of a political nature, as regards how that petition should be dealt with. It follows that a decision taken in that regard is not amenable to judicial review, regardless of whether, by that decision, the Parliament itself takes the appropriate measures or considers that it is unable to do so and refers the petition to the competent institution or department so that that institution or department may take those measures.

(see paras 13, 22-24)