Official Journal of the European Union
Appeal brought on 15 December 2021 by Oriol Junqueras i Vies against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2021 in Case T-613/20, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament
(Case C-780/21 P)
Language of the case: Spanish
Appellant: Oriol Junqueras i Vies (represented by: M. Marsal i Ferret, abogado)
Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The appellant submits that the Court of Justice should:
First. – Set aside the order of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 5 October 2021 in Case T-613/20;
Second. – Declare the present appeal fully admissible;
Third. — Reinstate the proceedings so that, once the appeal is declared admissible, the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of the European Union may continue its assessment thereof;
Fourth. — Order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings relating to the objection of inadmissibility and the present appeal proceedings.
Grounds of appeal and main arguments
In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds of appeal:
First: The order under appeal breaches the requirements of the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) in that, by declaring the action inadmissible (together with the decisions not to join cases and not to suspend the procedure), it deprives the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-115/21 [P] — and that which the General Court itself may give in Case T-24/20 (1) if it takes the same approach — of all effectiveness. This is because the General Court also erred in its interpretation of the legal effects of the judicial decisions that may be given in Cases T-24/20 and C 115/21 [P]. The General Court considers that a fresh decision on the part of the national authorities of the Kingdom of Spain would be necessary in order to reinstate Mr Junqueras in his parliamentary seat, whereas the effect of judicial decisions upholding his claims would be to maintain Mr Junqueras in that seat.
Second: The order under appeal incorrectly interprets the conditions laid down in case-law for it to be found that there is direct concern as regards the contested act, on which grounds it incorrectly concludes that the appellant does not have the standing required under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The order deprives the judicial decisions that may be delivered in Cases C-115/21 [P] and T-24/20 of any effectiveness, and fails to find that, had that act not been adopted, Mr Junqueras’ parliamentary seat would remain vacant and there would be no impediment to his reinstatement and the restoration of his rights.
Third: The order infringes the right to equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) and the right to effective judicial protection (Article 47 of the Charter). It incorrectly rules that the question of the infringement of those rights arises solely in the exchange of arguments concerning the merits of the case, whereas, had Mr Junqueras received the same treatment as an MEP [Member of the European Parliament] to whom the contested act is addressed (direct application of the effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19 (2) and decision of the E[uropean] P[arliament] contrary to that communicated by the Kingdom of Spain), the contested act would not have been produced as Mr Junqueras would continue to occupy his parliamentary seat. The infringement of the rights to equal treatment and to effective judicial protection indicate that Mr Junqueras is directly concerned, which gives him standing to institute proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
Fourth: The order misinterprets the effects of the Charter. The order fails to find that the fact that rights under the Charter are directly affected by the contested act gives rise to standing to institute legal proceedings in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, and fails to recognise that, in the present case, the powers of judicial review of EU law are not altered since Mr Junqueras cannot be required to appeal at national level against an act declaring vacant the parliamentary seat to which he wishes to be reinstated; on which grounds that reasoning is incorrect in law.
Fifth: The order misapplies the principles of effectiveness and of the primacy of EU law. The order errs in law by failing to establish that the contested act is a decision rooted in the desire not to give any meaningful effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2019 in Case C-502/19, thus infringing the right to effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter in the context of the right to proper enforcement of judgments; consequently, Mr Junqueras has standing to institute proceedings in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
(1) Order of 15 December 2020, Junqueras i Vies v Parliament (T-24/20, EU:T:2020:601).
(2) Judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies (C-502/19, EU:C:2019:1115).