Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Expedited procedure — Institutional law — Citizen of the European Union elected to the European Parliament while being held in provisional detention in the context of criminal proceedings — Article 14 TEU — Concept of ‘Member of the European Parliament’ — Article 343 TFEU — Immunities necessary for the performance of the tasks of the European Union — Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union — Article 9 — Immunities enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament — Immunity as regards travel — Immunities as regards sessions — Personal, temporal and material scope of the various immunities — Waiver of immunity by the European Parliament — Request to waive immunity from a national court — Act concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage — Article 5 — Term of office — Article 8 — Electoral procedure — Article 12 — Verification of the credentials of Members of the European Parliament following the official declaration of the election results — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 39(2) — Election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot — Right to stand as a candidate at elections.
Case C-502/19. (2019)
Language: English

In those circumstances the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘(1)
Does Article 9 of [the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union] apply before the commencement of “sessions” to a person accused of serious criminal offences, who has been remanded in custody pursuant to a court order made in respect of acts preceding the commencement of an electoral process in which that person was declared elected to the European Parliament but who, by court order, has been refused a special authorisation to leave prison which would enable him to comply with the conditions laid down by the national electoral legislation referred to in Article 8 of the [Electoral Act]?
(2)
If the answer is in the affirmative, where, because the elected person has not complied with the conditions laid down in the electoral legislation (a failure resulting from the limitation of his freedom of movement owing to the fact that he has been remanded in custody in the context of proceedings relating to serious offences), the body designated in the national electoral legislation has notified the European Parliament that that person has not acquired the status of Member of the Parliament and will not do so until such time as he complies with those conditions, does the broad interpretation of the term “sessions” continue to apply notwithstanding the temporary interruption of his expectation of taking his seat?
(3)
If the answer is that the broad interpretation should continue to apply, where the newly elected member was in temporary custody in the context of proceedings relating to serious offences sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the electoral process, is the judicial authority which ordered that that person be remanded in custody obliged, in the light of the phrase “while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament” in Article 9 of [the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union], to lift the custody measure absolutely, almost automatically, to enable compliance with the formalities and the requirement of travel to the European Parliament, or should recourse be had to a balancing exercise, of a relative nature, in the specific case between, on the one hand, the rights and interests arising from the interests of justice and due process and, on the other, those relating to the concept of immunity, as regards the need to ensure the functioning and independence of the [European] Parliament and the elected representative’s right to hold public office?’
On 14 October 2019, the referring court delivered a judgment on the merits in the criminal proceedings brought against Mr Junqueras Vies, amongst others, (‘the judgment of 14 October 2019’), in which it sentenced Mr Junqueras Vies to a 13-year term of imprisonment and to a 13-year disqualification from holding any public office, which entails the loss of all his current public offices and functions, including elective offices, and a ban on obtaining or exercising any new ones.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Mr Junqueras Vies"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court)"->"Mr Junqueras Vies"[label="Judgement 14/10/2019"];
   "Mr Junqueras Vies"->"13-year term of imprisonment and to a 13-year disqualification from holding any public office."[dir=none];
   "Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court)"->"The Court of Justice"[label="Questions of interpretation of EU law"];
}