Case C-486/01 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by the Front National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European Parliament
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, France, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), constitutional law, operation of the Institutions, political parties

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/47

Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-484/01)

(2002/C 84/81)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997
on health protection of individuals against the dangers of
ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure (1), or
at any rate by failing to notify those measures to the
Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-389/01 (2); although the prescribed time-
limit (13 May 2000) has expired, France has not yet adopted
the majority of the provisions necessary in order to transpose
the directive into national law.

(1) OJ L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001, p. 16.

Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by the Front
National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 deliver-
ed by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99,
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the
European Parliament

(Case C-486/01 P)

(2002/C 84/82)

European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by the Front
National.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the appeal brought by the Front
National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities,

— find that there has been an infringement of Community

law by the Court of First Instance,

— quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment

in whole or in part,

— rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
Justice,

— order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the

costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Error of law as regards the application of Article 29(1) of
the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The
constitution of a parliamentary group united around a
common idea, solidarity consisting in the search for a
balance between the rights of all MEP’s or parliamen-
tarians, cannot be refused on the grounds of a lack of
political affinity.

— Lack of legal basis on the review by the Parliament as to
the conformity with Rule 29(1) of the ‘Rules of Procedure
of the Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants’ (TDI
group); infringement of the principle of equal treatment
and of the provisions of the rules: contrary to what is
stated by the Court of First Instance, Rule 180 does
not give the Parliament power to monitor the correct
application and interpretation of its Rules of Procedure;
that rule solely allows the European Parliament to refer a
matter to the competent committee for its opinion. The
fact of having adopted a joint position and of constituting
a group in order to ensure that each MEP may exercise
his parliamentary mandate in full constitutes political
affinity for the purposes of Rule 29(1). Contrary to
paragraph 122 of the judgment, different component
parts of the TDI group lodged documents in association
with each other on several occasions.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with
regard to members of the TDI group: while the Court of
First Instance, in paragraph 165, seems to agree that there

C 84/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

that

treatment

this unequal

is discrimination between MEP’s who are members of a
it refuses to
political group and non-attached MEP’s,
is a ground for
accept
annulment of the contested measure. Even though an
exception of the illegality of Rule 29(1) of the rules has
not been raised by the applicants, it is nevertheless the
case that the members of the TDI group suffer from
discriminatory treatment in the light of the contested
decision.

The Court of First Instance has not drawn the correct
inferences from the abandonment by the European
Parliament of its previous practice, nor from the unequal
treatment imposed on the TDI group in comparison
with the ‘Groupe pour l’Europe des démocraties et des
différences’. Lastly, the Court of First Instance could not
reject the observations evidencing the political affinity of
the TDI group, even though the facts relied on post-date
the contested measure.

— Failure to observe the regulatory traditions common
to the Member States:
in refusing to draw the legal
consequences from comparative law and to find discrimi-
nation by the measure at
the Court of First
Instance fails to apply the rules and principles governing
Community law.

issue,

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements: the
scope of the contested measure is wider than that of
interpretation of the rules.

— Presumption of misuse of procedure: the Court of First
Instance fails to appreciate the reality of the misuse of
procedure which may be inferred from various examples
of amendments to the rules, clearly showing that there is
indeed a desire on the part of the European Parliament to
reduce systematically the rights of some of its members.

Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by J.C. Martinez
against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
in Joined Cases T-222/99,
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the
European Parliament

(Case C-488/01 P)

(2002/C 84/83)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by J.C.
Martinez.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the appeal brought by Mr Martinez
against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities,

— find that there has been an infringement of Community

law by the Court of First Instance,

— quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment

in whole or in part,

— rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
Justice,

— order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the

costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Four pleas are identical to the first four pleas submitted in Case
C-486/01 P (1).

— Infringement of the principle of democracy: the Court of
First Instance wrongly rejected this plea on the basis of a
failure to raise an objection of
illegality against the
Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

— Infringement of the principle of freedom of association:
the Court of First Instance does not show how the fact of
making the constitution of a group of MEP’s subject to a
requirement of political affinities constitutes a legitimate
ground if this maintains discrimination between non-
attached MEP’s and members of a constituted political
group.

(1) See page 47 of this Official Journal.