EN
C 109/16
Official Journal of the European Union
7.3.2022
3.
Is Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA, (2) read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted as meaning that it applies a fortiori where the act is not a criminal offence and as precluding national legislation, such as Article 59(2) of the ZANN, which excludes the owner of property confiscated from the group of persons entitled to lodge an appeal, or, such as Article 232 of the ZM, which expressly states that a notice by which property is confiscated under national law from a third party not party to the administrative offence proceedings is not open to appeal?
(1) (2)
Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property (OJ 2005 L 68, p. 49).
Appeal brought on 8 December 2021 by Jérôme Rivière and Others against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament (Case C-767/21 P) (2022/C 109/23) Language of the case: French Parties Appellants: Jérôme Rivière, Dominique Bilde, Joëlle Mélin, Aurélia Beigneux, Thierry Mariani, Jordan Bardella, Jean-Paul Garraud, Jean-François Jalkh, Gilbert Collard, Gilles Lebreton, Nicolaus Fest, Gunnar Beck, Philippe Olivier (represented by: F. Wagner, avocat) Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought The appellants claim that the Court should: — Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2021 in Case T-88/20, Rivière and Others v Parliament; — Declare the application admissible, having regard to Articles 263 and 277 TFEU; — Consequently, find that the oral decision of the President of the European Parliament of 13 January 2020 had no legal basis and annul it; — Order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs
Grounds of appeal and main arguments In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.
The first ground of appeal alleges distortion of the facts and mischaracterisation of the legal nature of the facts.
In particular, the appellants claim that the second sentence of paragraph 38 of the judgment is a distortion of the facts.
The contested measure did have the practical effect of denying the floor to MEPs who refused to remove their flags.
That distortion of the facts led the General Court to disregard the second consequence of the decision of 13 January 2020.
Accordingly, the General Court erred in its characterisation of the legal nature of the facts.
It did not take into account the deprivation of one of the essential aspects of an MEP’s exercise of his or her mandate, namely taking the floor.
The second ground of appeal alleges infringement and distortion in law and in fact of Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and a manifest error of assessment.
According to the appellants, the General Court was in fact required to analyse whether the small flag used by MEPs was a banner, and then whether the presence of that flag disrupted the good order of the sittings or constituted inappropriate behaviour, and interfered with the smooth conduct of parliamentary business, in order to draw a legal conclusion.
Through its comparison with other official languages of the European Union, the General Court had failed to have regard to Article 1 of Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining