CELEX: C2002/084/83
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-488/01 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by J.C. Martinez against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European Parliament

C 84/48               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
     is discrimination between MEP’s who are members of a               European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
     political group and non-attached MEP’s, it refuses to              and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
     accept that this unequal treatment is a ground for                 Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
     annulment of the contested measure. Even though an                 Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     exception of the illegality of Rule 29(1) of the rules has         European Communities on 17 December 2001 by J.C.
     not been raised by the applicants, it is nevertheless the          Martinez.
     case that the members of the TDI group suffer from
     discriminatory treatment in the light of the contested
     decision.
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance has not drawn the correct
     inferences from the abandonment by the European
                                                                        —     declare admissible the appeal brought by Mr Martinez
     Parliament of its previous practice, nor from the unequal
                                                                              against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the Court of
     treatment imposed on the TDI group in comparison
                                                                              First Instance of the European Communities,
     with the ‘Groupe pour l’Europe des démocraties et des
     différences’. Lastly, the Court of First Instance could not
     reject the observations evidencing the political affinity of       —     find that there has been an infringement of Community
     the TDI group, even though the facts relied on post-date                 law by the Court of First Instance,
     the contested measure.
—    Failure to observe the regulatory traditions common                —     quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment
     to the Member States: in refusing to draw the legal                      in whole or in part,
     consequences from comparative law and to find discrimi-
     nation by the measure at issue, the Court of First
                                                                        —     rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
     Instance fails to apply the rules and principles governing
                                                                              judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
     Community law.
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                              pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements: the                   Justice,
     scope of the contested measure is wider than that of
     interpretation of the rules.
                                                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the
                                                                              costs.
—    Presumption of misuse of procedure: the Court of First
     Instance fails to appreciate the reality of the misuse of
     procedure which may be inferred from various examples
     of amendments to the rules, clearly showing that there is
     indeed a desire on the part of the European Parliament to
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     reduce systematically the rights of some of its members.
                                                                        Four pleas are identical to the first four pleas submitted in Case
                                                                        C-486/01 P (1).
                                                                        —     Infringement of the principle of democracy: the Court of
                                                                              First Instance wrongly rejected this plea on the basis of a
                                                                              failure to raise an objection of illegality against the
Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by J.C. Martinez                           Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99,                          —     Infringement of the principle of freedom of association:
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de                        the Court of First Instance does not show how the fact of
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the                      making the constitution of a group of MEP’s subject to a
                     European Parliament                                      requirement of political affinities constitutes a legitimate
                                                                              ground if this maintains discrimination between non-
                                                                              attached MEP’s and members of a constituted political
                       (Case C-488/01 P)                                      group.
                         (2002/C 84/83)
                                                                        (1) See page 47 of this Official Journal.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the