Case T-758/25: Action brought on 31 October 2025 – Anderson and Others v Parliament
Date: 2025-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of EU law, committee of inquiry, conference of presidents, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), judicial review, parliamentary inquiry, powers of the institutions (EU), rights of the defence, transparency in decision-making








C_202600118EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/118


5.1.2026






Action brought on 31 October 2025 – Anderson and Others v Parliament


(Case T-758/25)

(C/2026/118)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Christine Anderson (Brussels, Belgium), Marieke Ehlers (Brussels), Charlie Weimers (Brussels) (represented by: D. Protat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare null and void Decision PE 771.085/CPG of the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament of 3 September 2025.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament does not possess the legal authority and lacks legal competence to take decision PE 771.085/CPG:






—


the European Parliament can establish a temporary Committee of Inquiry upon request by one-quarter of its members (MEPs) (currently 180) to investigate alleged maladministration in EU law implementation, as per Article 226 TFEU and Rule 215 of its Rules of Procedure. The role of the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament is limited to assessing legal admissibility and proposing composition, without discretion or veto over the inquiry’s appropriateness. This plenary-exclusive power ensures minority-initiated inquiries reach a full vote, preventing arbitrary filtering;










—


the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament exceeded its authority in decision PE 771.085/CPG (3 September 2025) by rejecting a valid request for an inquiry on transparency and accountability, despite acknowledging it met thresholds. No treaty or rule grants the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament veto power;










—


the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament overreach contradicts the European Parliament’s long-standing advocacy to strengthen inquiry rights, including positions in 2012 and 2014 [via procedure 2009/2212(INL)], the debate in April 2024 [via procedure 2024/2598(RSP)], and threats of legal action against blocked trilogues. Recent proposals of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (9 October 2025) and European Parliamentary Research Service analyses criticize the 1995 framework as restrictive and support easier minority access. Internally blocking plenary via the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament undermines European Parliament’s external push for democratic accountability tools;










—


Decision PE 771.085/CPG lacks competence and should be annulled to align with Treaties, Rules, and the European Parliament’s commitments.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement: failure to state reasons for decision:






—


Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU require EU institutions to state reasons for decisions, enabling rights of defence, judicial review, and transparency for Member States and citizens;










—


the Court of justice of the European Union in judgment of 4 July 1963, Germany v Commission (24/62, EU:C:1963:14) held this obligation is substantive, not formal, to verify Treaty application;










—


Decision PE 771.085/CPG rejects a valid request for a Committee on Transparency and Accountability (TRAC) without any rationale, despite the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament acknowledging admissibility and holding views;










—


this total absence of reasons violates essential procedural requirements and the European Parliament’s transparency commitments, warranting annulment.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 14 TEU:






—


Article 14(1) TEU mandates the European Parliament to exercise political control functions as laid down in the Treaties, with MEPs as representatives of EU citizens;










—


the valid request by 184 MEPs for the TRAC inquiry committee required the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament to forward it directly to a plenary for a vote by all MEPs;










—


Decision PE 771.085/CPG unlawfully blocks this plenary vote, infringing MEPs’ individual rights to decide on political control tools;










—


this violation of Article 14 TEU deprives citizens of parliamentary oversight and warrants annulment of the decision.










ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/118/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)