CELEX: C2002/084/82
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-486/01 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by the Front National 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

6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/47
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by the Commission                    European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
                                                                        Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
                         (Case C-484/01)                                Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 17 December 2001 by the Front
                                                                        National.
                          (2002/C 84/81)
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December             —     declare admissible the appeal brought by the Front
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for                Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     find that there has been an infringement of Community
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                        law by the Court of First Instance,
the Court should:
                                                                        —     quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and             in whole or in part,
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997              —     rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
      on health protection of individuals against the dangers of              judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
      ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure (1), or              Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      at any rate by failing to notify those measures to the                  pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
      Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its                Justice,
      obligations under Article 14 of that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       —     order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the
                                                                              costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case C-389/01 (2); although the prescribed time-            —     Error of law as regards the application of Article 29(1) of
limit (13 May 2000) has expired, France has not yet adopted                   the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament. The
the majority of the provisions necessary in order to transpose                constitution of a parliamentary group united around a
the directive into national law.                                              common idea, solidarity consisting in the search for a
                                                                              balance between the rights of all MEP’s or parliamen-
                                                                              tarians, cannot be refused on the grounds of a lack of
(1) OJ L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001, p. 16.
                                                                              political affinity.
                                                                        —     Lack of legal basis on the review by the Parliament as to
                                                                              the conformity with Rule 29(1) of the ‘Rules of Procedure
                                                                              of the Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants’ (TDI
                                                                              group); infringement of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                              and of the provisions of the rules: contrary to what is
Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by the Front                               stated by the Court of First Instance, Rule 180 does
National against the judgment of 2 October 2001 deliver-                      not give the Parliament power to monitor the correct
ed by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     application and interpretation of its Rules of Procedure;
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99,                            that rule solely allows the European Parliament to refer a
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de                        matter to the competent committee for its opinion. The
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the                      fact of having adopted a joint position and of constituting
                      European Parliament                                     a group in order to ensure that each MEP may exercise
                                                                              his parliamentary mandate in full constitutes political
                        (Case C-486/01 P)                                     affinity for the purposes of Rule 29(1). Contrary to
                                                                              paragraph 122 of the judgment, different component
                                                                              parts of the TDI group lodged documents in association
                          (2002/C 84/82)                                      with each other on several occasions.
                                                                        —     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment with
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001                    regard to members of the TDI group: while the Court of
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    First Instance, in paragraph 165, seems to agree that there
 ---pagebreak--- 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