Case T‑618/15

Udo Voigt

v

European Parliament

(Member of the European Parliament — Refusal to make Parliament premises available — Third-country nationals — Refusal of access to Parliament buildings — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Admissibility of a plea — Discrimination on grounds of political opinions)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber), 20 November 2017

Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Requirement for a specific reference to the provisions on which the action is based — None — Limits — Reliance on infringement of the Treaties as a basis for the action — Insufficient precision

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Abstract statement — Inadmissibility

See the text of the decision. (see para. 24)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 35)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 39)

In the context of an action for annulment, although an applicant is not obliged to state expressly the specific legal rule on which his complaint is based, his line of argument must be sufficiently clear for the opposing party and the EU judicature to be able to identify the rule without difficulty. In that regard, relying on the ‘infringement of the Treaties’ is merely a general assertion serving to bring the action for annulment which the European Court has jurisdiction to hear, but cannot serve to identify the legal basis of a plea. (see paras 43, 44)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 49, 98)

An applicant is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for annulment, only such claims as relate to him personally. However, that requirement cannot be understood as meaning that an action will be admissible before the Union Courts only if it is linked to the personal situation of the applicant alone. The applicant’s claims are admissible only if they are susceptible of justifying an annulment which would be of advantage to the applicant, that is to say, one in which he has a personal interest. (see para. 71)

Where the legislature and the administrative authority use two different terms in the same text having general application, reasons of consistency and legal certainty preclude those terms being given the same scope. This is a fortiori the case where those terms mean different things in everyday usage. (see para. 75)

Although nationality is a legal and political link between an individual and a sovereign State, the concept of ethnicity has its origin in the idea that societal groups share the sense of belonging to a common nation, religious faith, language, cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds. (see para. 76)

The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU is under Part Two of the Treaty, entitled ‘Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union’. It concerns situations coming within the scope of EU law in which a national of one Member State is treated in a discriminatory manner as compared with nationals of another Member State solely on the basis of their nationality. Accordingly, that article is not applicable in cases of potential discrimination of nationals of a non-member country as compared with nationals of Member States. Therefore, in so far as Article 21(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be construed as having the same scope as the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, a national of a non-member country is not entitled to rely on Article 21(2) of the Charter. (see paras 80-82)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 87)

Each case brought before the Court has its own file, containing inter alia the procedural documents produced by the parties to that case, and that each of those files is entirely autonomous. This is illustrated by paragraph 25 of the Practice Rules of Procedure of the General Court. However, it is true that apart from exceptional cases in which disclosure of a document might adversely affect the proper administration of justice, parties to proceedings are free to disclose their own written submissions to parties not involved in those proceedings. Likewise, a party to proceedings may, subject to the same proviso, consent to a pleading which it presented in the context of those proceedings being used by another party thereto in the context of separate proceedings. (see paras 91, 92)

A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated. That is not the case as regards the fact that the President of the Parliament adopted a decision preventing members or sympathisers of a Russian party from entering the premises of the institution in order to express themselves in a political meeting, rather than count on the ability of the security services to intervene, since that decision is part of in the particular context characterising during that period the political relations between the Russian Federation and the Union. A fortiori since that decision, being linked to the context in question, was merely temporary in nature. (see paras 102, 110, 118)