CELEX: C2002/156/18
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-167/02 P: Appeal brought on 3 May 2002 by Willy Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v The European Parliament, supported by the Council of the European Union, the Commission of the European Communities, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic

C 156/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
Appeal brought on 3 May 2002 by Willy Rothley and                           decision of the Parliament extend beyond the purely
70 other Members of the European Parliament against the                     internal organisation of the work of the Parliament, and
judgment delivered on 26 February 2002 by the Court                         the decision therefore has direct effects for the Members
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                        of the Parliament. That decision is thus a measure which
Chamber) in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley and 70 other                         can be the subject of an action under the first paragraph
Members of the European Parliament v The European                           of Article 230 EC, a view also subscribed to by the Court
Parliament, supported by the Council of the European                        of First Instance in the contested judgment. Those effects
Union, the Commission of the European Communities,                          are grounds enough for the action to be admissible, and
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic                      it is not necessary in such a case to decide whether the
                                                                            appellants are individually concerned. In the alternative:
                                                                            contrary to the view of the Court of First Instance, the
                        (Case C-167/02 P)                                   appellants are already individually concerned by virtue of
                                                                            the fact that they form a closed circle of persons, the
                         (2002/C 156/18)                                    identity and number of whom is both fixed and known.
                                                                            The Court of First Instance also incorrectly found that the
                                                                            case-law establishing that an action for annulment of a
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February                     measure of general application is admissible where the
2002 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                 author of that measure was under an obligation, imposed
the European Communities in Case T-17/00 Willy Rothley                      by a higher-ranking legal provision, to take account of
and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v The                       the special situation of the applicants, was not applicable
European Parliament, supported by the Council of the Euro-                  to the case at issue.
pean Union, the Commission of the European Communities,
the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the French Republic
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     Both the investigative powers of the OLAF on the one
Communities on 26 February 2002 by Willy Rothley and 70                     hand, and the obligations to provide information and to
other Members of the European Parliament, represented by                    permit, and cooperate with, the activities of the OLAF
Dr Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, Nörr Stiefenhofer Lutz,                  imposed on the Members of Parliament, their employees
Charlottenstrasse 57, D-10117 Berlin.                                       and the staff of the Parliament by the contested decision
                                                                            on the other, significantly encroach upon the right to
                                                                            independent and free exercise of their mandate. The
                                                                            OLAF’s powers of intervention and action, considered as
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                 a whole, infringe or circumvent the immunities accorded
                                                                            to Members of the Parliament under Article 10 of the
1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the          Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Euro-
      European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 February                   pean Communities. The contested decision and the
      2002 (1);                                                             powers which that decision confers on the OLAF to carry
                                                                            out investigations in the Parliament also significantly
2.    annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 Nov-              encroach upon the right of committees of inquiry to
      ember 1999 on the amendments to the Rules of Pro-                     conduct investigations, thereby adversely affecting the
      cedure following the Interinstitutional Agreement of                  rights of the members of such committees, in particular,
      25 May 1999 on the internal investigations conducted                  those of the appellants.
      by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2) in so far as
      it concerns the Members of the European Parliament,
                                                                       —    Breach of the principle of effective judicial protection: the
      in the alternative,                                                   Court failed to consider whether its interpretation of the
                                                                            fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC ensured effective
      refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a              judicial protection for the appellants or whether, in
      new judgment;                                                         particular in respect of the condition requiring that an
                                                                            applicant be individually concerned, the Court should
                                                                            have applied an interpretation which afforded the appel-
3.    order the European Parliament (respondent) to pay the
                                                                            lants adequate judicial protection against the contested
      costs.
                                                                            decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC:          (1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
      in the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance           (2) OJ 1999 L 2002, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellants were not, according
      to any conceivable criterion established in the case-law of
      the Court, individually concerned by the contested legal
      measure. Both the content and the effects of the contested