Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Event occurring after the action was brought capable of entailing the disappearance of that interest

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Privileges and immunities of the European Communities – Members of the European Parliament – Immunity for opinions expressed and votes cast in the exercise of their functions – Immunity during sessions

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Arts 9 and 10)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Request to defend the immunity of a Member of the Parliament seeking to obtain suspension of a prosecution against him

(Art. 288, second para., EC; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 10, first para.,(a))

Summary

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on a claim for annulment in the event that an applicant has, on account of an event occurring since the action was brought, lost all legal interest in having the contested measure annulled which means that the annulment of that measure is, of itself, no longer capable of having legal consequences.

However, an applicant can retain a legal interest in claiming the annulment of an act of an institution only if the alleged unlawfulness is liable to recur in the future independently of circumstances particular to the case which gave rise to the action brought by that applicant.

(see paras 61, 68)

2. While the privileges and immunities conferred on the European Communities by the Protocol relating to them annexed to the Treaty have a functional character, inasmuch as they are intended to avoid any interference with the functioning and independence of the Communities, the fact remains that they have been expressly accorded to Members of the Parliament and to officials and other staff of the Community institutions. The fact that the privileges and immunities have been provided in the public interest of the Community justifies the power given to the institutions to waive the immunity where appropriate but does not mean that these privileges and immunities are granted to the Community exclusively and not also to its officials, to other staff and to Members of the Parliament. Therefore the Protocol confers an individual right on the persons concerned, compliance with which is ensured by the system of rights of recourse established by the Treaty.

In that regard, it must be accepted that the Parliament has a broad discretion as to the direction it wishes to give to a decision following a request seeking to obtain from the Parliament a requirement that the prosecution be suspended pursuant to point (a) in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol. However, the question whether the decision should be taken on the basis of Article 9 or on that of point (a) in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol is not within the ambit of the Parliament’s discretion.

(see paras 94, 96, 101-102)

3. Since point (a) in the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the purpose of which – combined with the provisions of national law to which it refers – is to establish the system of immunities enjoyed by Members of the Parliament in the territory of their own State during the Parliament’s sessions, confers an individual right on the persons concerned and since it constitutes, therefore, a rule of law intended to confer rights on the Members of the Parliament entitled to it, the Parliament, by refraining from deciding on the basis of that provision regarding a request the purpose of which was expressly that of obtaining the suspension, under that provision, of a prosecution, committed a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals.

None the less, given the Parliament’s wide discretion in that respect, a decision to require that a prosecution be suspended is not a necessary consequence of the submission of a request addressed to it for that purpose. It could, in fact, have adopted either a decision to request that the prosecution be suspended or a decision not to request such suspension. Therefore, the fact that it was on an incorrect legal basis that the Parliament did not accede to the request made to it to require that the prosecution be suspended cannot be the direct and determining cause of the damage alleged assuming it to be established.

(see paras 108, 115-117)