Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Conditions of admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Immaterial - Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first para.)

2. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Measures having binding legal effects - Measure taken by the President of the Parliament on its behalf

(Art. 230 EC; Act concerning the election of representatives to the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage Art. 12(2))

3. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions of granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Act of the Parliament disqualifying one of its members from office

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

4. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of the implementation of an act of the Parliament disqualifying one of its members from office - Balancing of the interests at issue

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. The problem of the admissibility of the main action must not, as a rule, be examined in the course of interim relief proceedings because of the risk of pre-judging the main action. Such examination may, however, prove to be necessary, where the manifest inadmissibility of the main application to which the application for interim relief is related has been raised, to establish whether certain factors exist that would allow the conclusion, prima facie, that the main application is admissible.

( see para. 58 )

2. Measures producing binding legal effects affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts and decisions capable of being the subject of an action for annulment within the meaning of Article 230 EC. By contrast, the form in which such acts or decisions are adopted, is, in principle, irrelevant as regards the possibility of challenging them by such an action. The fact that an act was adopted, not by the Parliament, but by its President on behalf of the Parliament, does not affect the question whether the applicant may challenge its validity, inasmuch as it produces binding legal effects.

( see para. 61 )

3. The argument that the Parliament's role in the context of a procedure for the disqualification of one of its members from holding office based on Article 12(2) of the 1976 Act is not restricted to an instance of a competence in the exercise of which there is no scope for discretion is a serious one and cannot prima facia be discounted. The urgency of an application for interim relief is to be determined by reference to the need for an interim ruling in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the party seeking the interim relief. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that he cannot wait for the resolution of the main proceedings without suffering harm of that kind. Given that the term of office of a member of the Parliament is restricted to five years and that the disqualification of the applicant from holding office as a result of a measure taken by the Parliament makes it impossible for him to carry out his duties as a Member of the European Parliament, it is clear that, if the contested act is annulled by the Court in the main proceedings, the harm suffered by the applicant would be irreparable in the absence of suspension of the operation of that act.

( see paras 63, 85, 95-96 )

4. Where, when hearing an application for the suspension of operation of an act, the Court weighs up the competing interests, it must determine whether the possible annulment of the contested act by the Court in the proceedings on the merits would make it possible to reverse the situation brought about by the immediate implementation of that act and, conversely, whether the suspension of its operation would be such as to prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed

Whilst it is undeniably in the general interest that the composition of the Parliament be in accordance with Community law, it is also in the general interest that its members be allowed to carry out the duties entrusted to them by their electors for the entire duration of their term of office, unless that term is brought to an end in conformity with the applicable rules of law. The general interest of the Parliament in the maintenance of the application of a member's disqualification from holding office pursuant to national law cannot, in view of all the ensuing unfavourable consequences for that member, prevail over the specific interest of the member in resuming his seat in the Parliament and his public duties until the decision of the Court on the substance of the case in the main proceedings, unless the Parliament takes note of the disqualification in accordance with the rules laid down by Community law. However important may be the French Republic's interest in having its electoral legislation respected by the Parliament, such an interest is still of a general nature and cannot prevail over the immediate and specific interest of the member concerned.

( see paras 100-104 )