Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures of the Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties

(Art. 230, first para., EC; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Arts 9 and 10)

3. European Parliament – Powers – Privileges and immunities of Members of the Parliament

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Arts 8 and 10)

4. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 48(2))

Summary

1. The legality of a decision by which the Parliament waives the immunity of one of its Members may be reviewed by the Community judicature under the first paragraph of Article 230 EC inasmuch as it constitutes an act which produces or is intended to produce legal effects with respect to third parties.

That decision has legal effects going beyond the internal organisation of the Parliament since the decision makes it possible for proceedings to be brought against the Member to whom the application for a waiver of immunity relates.

In that regard, although the privileges and immunities set out in the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities have been granted solely in the interests of the Community, the fact remains that they have been expressly accorded to the officials and other staff of institutions of the Community and to the Members. 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 and not directly to its officials, other staff and Members. Therefore the Protocol confers an individual right on the persons concerned, compliance with which is ensured by the right of recourse provided for in Article 230 EC.

(see paras 28-29, 31)

2. The notion of direct concern requires the Community measure complained of to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules.

Since the immunity provided for by Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities protects Members of the Parliament against certain measures which are liable to interfere with the exercise of their functions, a decision by the Parliament to waive the immunity of one of its Members alters the legal situation of that Member, simply because it removes that protection, re-establishing his status as a person who is subject to the general law of the Member States and thus laying him open, without the necessity for any intermediary rule, to measures, inter alia those ordering detention and the bringing of legal proceedings, imposed by the general law.

The discretion left to the national authorities, following the waiver of immunity, as regards the resumption or discontinuance of proceedings brought against a Member has no bearing on the fact that his legal situation is directly affected, since the effects attached to the decision to waive immunity are restricted to the removal of the protection he enjoyed on account of his status as a Member, which does not involve any additional implementing measure.

(see paras 33-35)

3. It is apparent from the last paragraph of Article 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, according to which immunity cannot prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members, that the Parliament is competent to decide on an application for waiver of the immunity of a Member. By contrast, there is no rule, either in the Protocol or in the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, establishing the Parliament as the competent authority for deciding whether the privilege provided for by Article 8 of the Protocol applies.

Furthermore, the field of application of Articles 8 and 10 of the Protocol is not the same. The objective of Article 10 is to safeguard the independence of Members by ensuring that pressure, in the form of threats of arrest or legal proceedings, is not brought to bear on them during the sessions of the Parliament whereas Article 8 has the function of protecting Members against restrictions on their freedom of movement, other than judicial restrictions.

As the Parliament lacks the competence to waive the privilege provided for by Article 8 it does not err in law where it decides to waive the immunity of a Member without ruling on the privilege which was granted to him in his capacity as a Member of the Parliament.

(see paras 45-47, 50-51, 69)

4. It follows from Article 44(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the application must state the subject‑matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that the introduction of a new plea in law in the course of proceedings is not allowed unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.

(see para. 85)