CELEX: 62021TN0710
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-710/21: Action brought on 4 November 2021 — Roos and Others v Parliament

10.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/34
            
         
      Action brought on 4 November 2021 — Roos and Others v Parliament
      (Case T-710/21)
      (2022/C 11/47)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicants: Robert Roos (Poortugaal, Netherlands), Anne-Sophie Pelletier (Ixelles, Belgium), Francesca Donato (Palermo, Italy), Virginie Joron (Durningen, France) and IC (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: European Parliament
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicants claim that the General Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those relating to the application for suspension of operation of the contested decision.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.
      
                  1.
               
               
                  First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no valid legal basis for creating consequences as regards the members of the European Parliament. The applicants challenge the assertion that Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament constitutes a valid legal basis for the adoption of the contested decision and therefore, for imposing the contested measure on them. In addition, they claim that a decision of the Bureau, such as the contested decision, cannot form the basis of measures which involve the processing of very sensitive data, in so far as, in accordance with Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the essential elements of such data processing must be laid down in a ‘law’, which a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament is not.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the freedom and independence of Members of the Parliament and of the immunities conferred on them by the Treaties. The applicants consider that the contested decision is contrary to Article 2 of the Statute for Members of the Parliament (which lays down the principle that members are free and independent) and Article 7 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (which provides, in particular, that no administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of Members of the Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the Parliament). The consequence of the contested decision is that the applicants must present a valid EU digital COVID certificate each time they wish to visit the Parliament. If they are unable or unwilling to present such a certificate, the applicants will be denied access to the Parliament’s buildings.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles relating to the processing of personal data. This plea is divided into two parts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The first part, alleging infringement of the purpose limitation principle of the processing of data and the principle of legality. In order for the personal data contained in the applicants’ EU digital COVID certificates to be used to give them access to the Parliament’s buildings, it is legally required that they have been collected for this purpose. In the absence of a legal basis expressly authorising the processing of medical data relating to vaccination, testing or recovery for the purpose of conditioning access to the workplace and to parliamentary assemblies, it is in no way up to the Bureau of the Parliament to authorise such data processing, a fortiori by means of a rule which is not a law in the formal sense of the term.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The second part, alleging infringement of the principles of fairness, transparency and minimisation since, at the time of the collection of their personal data, the applicants were not informed that those data would be used to grant or deny them access to the place of work where they exercise their mandate as Members of Parliament.
                           
                        
            
                  4.
               
               
                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision unjustifiably infringes the right to privacy and personal data, the right to physical integrity, the right to liberty and security and the right to equality and non-discrimination. This plea is divided into two parts.
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The first part, alleging infringement of the applicants’ rights to physical integrity, to liberty and security, to equality and non-discrimination, and of their rights to respect for their privacy and for their personal data.
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The second part, alleging that the infringement by the contested decision of the rights and principles referred to in the first part does not comply with the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that the contested measure is not necessary, appropriate and proportionate for the attainment of the objectives pursued.