Case T-527/21: Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Abenante and Others v Council and Parliament
Date: 2021-08-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU national, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, free movement of persons, health certificate, health risk, scientific report, vaccination, vaccine








C_2021422EN.01002801.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/28






Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Abenante and Others v Council and Parliament
(Case T-527/21)
(2021/C 422/37)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Stefania Abenante (Ferrara, Italy) and 423 other applicants (represented by: M. Sandri, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


as an immediate interim measure, immediately suspend application of Article 1(1)(a) and (b);










—


principally, annul the contested Regulation (EU) 2021/953 in its entirety;










—


in the alternative, (i) annul definitively Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953, (1) and (ii) either annul Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 definitively and/or until such time as a provision is expressly inserted into the regulation stating that only positive cases as provided for under the protocols issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), in the field of RT-PCR swabs in respect of asymptomatic persons and in respect of persons showing symptoms and concerning development cycles, are to constitute positive cases of Covid-19;










—


in the further alternative, as a possible compromise to the specific demands of the parties, annul the wording of Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of the contested regulation and amend that provision in part by replacing the wording thereof with an obligation making the issuance of an EU Certificate subject to an EU citizen first undertaking, in the circumstances provided for in the regulation, a saliva test and, in the event that the result of that test is positive, adhering to the WHO and ECDC protocols for an effective verification of a confirmed case of Sars Cov 2 of Covid-19;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs in the present case.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Resolutions Nos 2383/21 and 2361/2021 of the Council of Europe.
In that regard, the applicants submit that the contested regulation, which favours vaccinated persons over those not vaccinated against Covid-19, on the incorrect scientific assumption that vaccinated persons are not infectious, constitutes unlawful discrimination with regard to the exercise of freedom of movement, expressly prohibited by the Council of Europe, the executive body of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’), an organisation of which the Member States are members and which is supported by the European Union and from whose policies the Member States and the European Union cannot, therefore, deviate.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41 to 49 of the Charter and infringement of Article 54 of the Charter.
In that regard, the applicants submit that the regulation does not refer to any source capable of providing any circumstantial or probative evidence that there is, in fact, scientific uncertainty specifically as to whether vaccinated persons are less likely to infect another person with Sars-CoV-2 as compared with persons who are not infected. The indispensable and precautionary step of adequate and suitable medical and scientific consultation to support that assertion has not been carried out. The assertion that vaccinated persons are not infectious is contradicted by the regulation itself, in which it is stated that it is necessary to wait for evidence. No EU citizen may be discriminated against and thereby prevented from exercising in full his or her fundamental right to unrestricted movement in the absence of any evidence whatsoever of the veracity of the scientific basis for such an impediment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Charter in the form of misuse of power and infringement of the principle of legality as set out in Article 49 of the Charter due to the scientific basis of the regulation lacking substance.
In that regard, the applicants submit that the development of, and marketing authorisation for, vaccines aimed at preventing the spread of the virus Sars cov 2 were never intended to prevent vaccinated persons from infecting others. Extending the applicability of vaccines outside the context of that development and authorisation is illegitimate. There is ample incontrovertible and uncontested documentary evidence, based on statistics tracking the course of infections in Europe and globally, which shows that countries in which more people are vaccinated are those where the highest number of infections take place and that vaccinated persons promote the spread of variants and, in particular, of the ‘delta’ variant. There is evidence that mortality from Covid-19 is higher among vaccinated persons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 35 of the Charter on the basis that the contested regulation is not aligned with WHO and ECDC guidelines as regards the use of swabs. Misuse of power.
In that regard, the applicants submit that RT-PCR swabs are amplified in the laboratories of certain countries with a higher number of cycles than that set out as being reliable by the ECDC and the WHO. Swabs are used without precautionary and/or subsequent clinical verification, and the incorrect amplification means that the results are wrong. If the result is positive, the test is not repeated as is advised in the WHO guidelines, and thus in that respect in-vitro testing is also entirely unreliable. The contested regulation obliges asymptomatic persons to be subject to screening in order to obtain an EU Certificate, whereas the WHO guidelines state that the RT-PCR swab tests and/or rapid tests for asymptomatic persons are useless, it not being proven that those persons are infectious. The only seriously practicable solution for reaching, with the maximum level of scientific reliability, the objective of making travel as safe as possible, which the contested regulation sets out as its goal, is to oblige vaccinated and unvaccinated persons to undergo a saliva test immediately prior to the required use and, in the event of a positive result, to carry out an RT-PCR swab test that is amplified by a number of cycles that is compatible with the WHO and ECDC guidelines.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).