Case T-32/20: Action brought on 14 January 2020 — Buxadé Villalba and Others v Parliament
Date: 2020-01-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Catalonia, European election, Member of the European Parliament, Spain, Statute for Members of the Parliament, contract, electoral law, financial interests of members, national election, provision of services








C_2020077EN.01005602.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/56






Action brought on 14 January 2020 — Buxadé Villalba and Others v Parliament
(Case T-32/20)
(2020/C 77/78)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Jorge Buxadé Villalba, María Esperanza Araceli Aguilar Pinar and Hermann Tertsch Del Valle-Lersundi (represented by: M. Castro Fuertes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision to grant Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres the status of Members of the European Parliament;










—


order the cessation of any effects of that status and the annulment of any effects already produced;










—


order the termination of any contracts for the provision of services concluded by Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres with assistants, advisers, trainees or third parties;










—


order Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres to reimburse all sums, regardless of the reason and the amount, received by them from the European Parliament in their unlawful status as MEPs and the sums paid by the European Parliament to third parties for any contract for the provision of services concluded with assistants, advisers, trainees or third parties;










—


in the alternative, declare that the post of MEP is incompatible with that of member of the Legislative Assembly of the Autonomous Community, declare that Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó and Antoni Comín i Oliveres have no right to receive any remuneration from 2 July 2019 until the date on which they took up their posts, and order the reimbursement of that remuneration together with late payment interest, in the event that they have received any amount;










—


in the event that the application is successful, order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 8 and 12 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament of 20 September 1976, in accordance with Spanish electoral law.






—


In that regard, the applicants submit that, in accordance with that Act, the European electoral procedure is governed, in each Member State, by national provisions and that, consequently, Articles 219 to 224 of the Ley Orgánica del Régimen Electoral General (Organic Law on the General Electoral System) are applicable. Specifically, the latter provision provides that within five days, elected candidates must swear or pledge to abide by the Constitution and that, where that is not done, the seat will be declared vacant. Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín have not at any point appeared before the Junta Electoral Central (Central Electoral Board) in order to swear or pledge to abide by the Constitution.














2.


Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 3(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.






—


In that regard, the applicants submit that the competent Spanish authority has not provided any certificate stating that Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín have sworn or pledged to abide by the Constitution, which is a condition precedent to their status as elected representatives. Consequently, according to the applicants, the European Parliament’s conduct disregards the European Electoral Act, encroaches upon sovereign competences of the Member States and could result in any agreement adopted by the European Parliament in plenary sessions or committees in which Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín may participate being entirely unlawful and invalid.














3.


Third plea, alleging that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 December 2019 delivered in Case C-502/19, Junqueras Vies, is irrelevant for the purposes of the European Parliament’s measure being invalid.






—


It is submitted in that respect that Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín were never in preventive detention and that they hold immunity only through being declared elected representatives, but they do not hold the full status of MEPs, on the ground that not all of the requirements of the Spanish electoral procedure have been fulfilled.














4.


Fourth plea, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 7(3) and (4) of the European Electoral Act, in so far as there is a ground for incompatibility provided for under Spanish electoral law (Article 211(2)(d) of the Organic Law on the General Electoral System).






—


The applicants claim in that regard that, in accordance with EU law, each Member State may extend the grounds for incompatibility provided for at national level to elections to the European Parliament, that the abovementioned provision of national electoral law provides for the incompatibility of persons who are members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Autonomous Communities, and that Mr Puigdemont and Mr Comín ceased to be members of the Catalan Parliament on 7 January 2020.