PRESS RELEASE No 17/02
26 February 2002
Judgment in Case T-17/00
Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v European
Parliament
On 25 May 1999 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a regulation
concerning investigations conducted by the Office. It provides, inter
alia, that the Office may carry out investigations within the European
institutions, the latter being informed when agents of the Office conduct
an investigation on their premises or when they consult a document or request
information held by those institutions.
An interinstitutional agreement concluded between the Parliament, the
Council and the Commission provides that each institution is to adopt common
rules consisting of the implementing measures required to ensure the smooth
operation of the investigations carried out by the Office within their institution.
On 1 June 1999 that agreement and the regulation concerning investigations
entered into force.
On 18 November 1999 the Parliament adopted a decision on the amendments to
its Rules of Procedure authorising application of the rules provided for by
the interinstitutional agreement.
Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament challenge the
legality of that decision, claiming that the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities should annul it.
They also requested suspension of the operation of that measure and/or of
any other provisional measure which might protect the Members of the Parliament.
By order of 2 May 2000 the President of the Court of First Instance suspended
the decision of the European Parliament in part and, pending judgment on the
substance of the case, ordered the European Parliament to grantagents of the
Office access to the offices of the applicants only with the consent of the
latter (see Press Release No 32/00).
In the main proceedings, the applicants claimed that the Court should annul
the contested measure in so far as it concerned the Members of the European
Parliament. The Parliament contended that the Court should dismiss the action
as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded. The Parliament is supported
by the Council, the Commission, the Netherlands and France.
The Court dismisses the action as inadmissible.
Article 230 EC provides, inter alia, that any natural person may, under
certain conditions, institute proceedings against a decision which is of direct
and individual concern to him.
The Court establishes whether the contested measure is a "decision"
within the meaning of Article 230 EC or a legislative act of general application.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance,
an act cannot be considered as constituting a decision if it is applicable
to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect
to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract.
The Court of First Instance observes that the contested measure has a general
purpose, which is to lay down the conditions upon which the Parliament will
cooperate with the Office in order to facilitate the smooth operation of investigations
within that institution. In keeping with that object, the measure contemplates
the situation of the Members and stipulates special provisions for them where,
in particular, they are implicated in an investigation conducted by the Office
or where they have acquired knowledge of facts which give rise to a presumption
of the existence of possible cases of fraud or of serious situations relating
to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a failure to comply
with obligations liable to result in disciplinary or, where appropriate, criminal
proceedings. The contested measure applies without distinction to the Members
of the Parliament in office at the time of its entry into force and to any other
person subsequently coming to perform the same duties. The Court finds that
it applies without temporal limitation to objectively determined situations
and has legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the
abstract.
The Court concludes that the contested measure, although it is called
a "decision", is a measure of general application.
The Court considers, nevertheless, the question of whether there are circumstances
in the instant case which make it possible to distinguish the applicants individually
by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances
in which they are differentiated from all other persons.
The Court finds that the contested measure affects the applicants in a
similar way to any other Member of the Parliament, present or future.
The applicants have argued that the contested measure prejudices both their
independence and the immunity conferred upon them by the Protocol on Privileges
and Immunities of the European Communities. However, the Court notes that that
Protocol contains no provision explicitly governing internal investigations
in the Parliament and that the contested measure provides that 'Rules governing
Members' parliamentary immunity and the right to refuse to testify remain unchanged.'
The Court states that the risk cannot a priori be excluded that the Office,
in conducting an investigation, might perform an act prejudicial to the immunity
enjoyed by every Member of the Parliament. However, even if such an event were
to occur, any Member of the Parliament confronted with an act of that nature,
which he considered damaging to him, could then avail himself of the judicial
protection and the legal remedies provided for by the Treaty.
Since the applicants are not "individually" concerned by the contested
measure, the action is dismissed as inadmissible.
|
Available in English, French and German. For the full text of the judgments, please consult our Internet page For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly: Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731 |