Case T-711/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — ID and Others v Parliament
Date: 2021-11-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, coronavirus disease, disease prevention, epidemic, equal treatment, health certificate, personal data, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, public building








C_2022148EN.01002801.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/28






Action brought on 4 November 2021 — ID and Others v Parliament
(Case T-711/21)
(2022/C 148/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ID and six other applicants (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules for access to buildings at the European Parliament’s three places of work;










—


order the defendant to pay all of the costs, including those relating to the action for suspension of operation of the contested decision.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no valid legal basis for processing the applicants’ medical data. The applicants dispute that Article 1e(2) of the Staff Regulations and Articles 10(1), 80(4) and 126(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union constitute a valid legal basis for adopting the contested decision and, therefore, for imposing the contested measure against them. In addition, they submit that a decision of the Bureau, such as the contested decision, cannot form the basis of measures involving the processing of very sensitive data since, in accordance with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the essential elements of such data processing must be laid down by ‘law’, which a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament is not.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles on the processing of personal data. This plea is divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging infringement of the purpose limitation principle governing the processing of data and the principle of legality. In order for the personal data contained in the applicants’ EU digital COVID certificates to be used to give them access to the Parliament’s buildings, it is a legal requirement that those data must have been collected for that purpose. Without a legal basis expressly authorising the processing of medical data relating to vaccination, testing or recovery for the purposes of imposing conditions for access to a place of work and to parliamentary assemblies, in no circumstances is it for the Bureau of the Parliament to authorise such data processing, and all the less by means of a requirement which is not a law in the strict sense of the term.










—


Second part, alleging infringement of the principles of good faith, openness and minimisation since, when their personal data were collected, the applicants were not informed that those data would be used to give or refuse them access to their place of work.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes, without justification, the right to privacy and personal data, the right to physical integrity, the right to liberty and security and the right to equality and non-discrimination. This plea is divided into two parts.






—


First part, alleging infringement of the applicants’ rights to physical integrity, right to liberty and security, right to equality and non-discrimination and rights to respect for privacy and their personal data.










—


Second part, alleging that the infringement by the contested decision of the rights and principles referred to in the first part breaches the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter in that the contested measure is not necessary, appropriate or proportionate to achieve the aims pursued.