Case C-572/23 P: Appeal brought on 15 September 2023 by Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí i Obiols against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 July 2023 in Case T-272/21, Puigdemont i Casamajó and others v Parliament
Date: 2023-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, admissibility, criminal procedure, equal treatment, parliamentary immunity, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_202400622EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/622


15.1.2024





Appeal brought on 15 September 2023 by Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí i Obiols against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 5 July 2023 in Case T-272/21, Puigdemont i Casamajó and others v Parliament
(Case C-572/23 P)
(C/2024/622)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó, Antoni Comín i Oliveres, Clara Ponsatí i Obiols (represented by: P. Bekaert and S. Bekaert, advocaten, G. Boye, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


annul the decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the European Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the appellants’ immunity; or, in the alternative










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the European Parliament and the Kingdom of Span to pay the costs; or, in the alternative










—


reserve the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of this appeal, the appellants rely on the following ten grounds of appeal:
First ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by dismissing the first plea arguing that the contested decisions did not breach the obligation to state reasons as provided for in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Second ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by dismissing the second plea, particularly by asserting that it would be neither for the Parliament nor for the General Court to review the request for waiver, especially its admissibility, in accordance with the case law in Berlusconi and Fininvest.
             (1)

Third ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by concluding that the right to have their affairs handled impartially and fairly by the Parliament was not breached
Fourth ground of appeal. The General Court erred in law by concluding that the Parliament did not breach the appellants’ right to be heard, as recognized in Article 41(2) of the Charter.
Fifth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by dismissing the fifth plea, on the breach of the principle of legal certainty arising from the lack of clarity of the contested decisions.
Sixth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by dismissing the sixth plea, alleging breach of the immunities provided for in Article 343 TFEU and Article 9 of Protocol No 7, in conjunction with Articles 6, 39(2) and 45 of the Charter, Article 21 TFEU, and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The General Court erred in law by dismissing also the seventh plea, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration and of the principle of equal treatment, by either departing from its own precedent or making an error of assessment.
Seventh ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law and distorted evidence by dismissing the eighth plea of the action for annulment, as regards the violation of the principle of sound administration and the principle of equal treatment as regards precedents that show that the Parliament does not waive immunity for the purpose of arresting Members without a conviction, and as regards the application of Rule 9(7) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
Eighth ground of appeal: Breach of Article 47 of the Charter, in light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, of Article 296 TFEU, and of Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The General Court erred in law by not providing adequate and sufficient reasons.
Ninth ground of appeal: The General Court infringed Article 47 of the Charter, interpreted in light of Article 6 and 13 of the Convention, by dismissing to adopt the measures of organization of procedure and the measures of inquiry requested.
Tenth ground of appeal: The General Court erred in law by not addressing, on its own motion, whether there was a need to adjudicate on the action any longer, particularly in light of the order of 12 January 2023 of the investigative judge of the Spanish Supreme Court. Breach of the principle of legal certainty.


(1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest, C-219/17, EU:C:2018:1023.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/622/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)