Case C-486/01 P

Front national

v

European Parliament

(Appeal – Statement of formation of a group within the meaning of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament – Lack of political affinities – Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group – Cross-appeal – Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC – Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person – Inadmissibility of action brought by a national political party)

Summary of the Judgment

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly affected – Criteria – Parliament decision dissolving a political group formed by Members belonging to a national political party – Whether that party directly affected – Not so affected

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rules 29(1) and (2), and 30)

The condition that the decision forming the subject-matter of an action for annulment must be of ‘direct concern’ to a natural or legal person, as it is stated in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires the Community measure complained of to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules.

A decision of the European Parliament concerning the interpretation of Article 29(1) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and dissolving with retroactive effect the ‘Groupe technique des députés indépendants (TDI) – Groupe mixte’ – to the extent to which it deprived the Members having declared the formation of the TDI Group, and in particular the Members from the Front National’s list, of the opportunity of forming by means of the TDI Group a political group within the meaning of Rule 29 – affected those Members directly. Those Members were in fact prevented, solely because of the contested act, from forming themselves into a political group and were henceforth deemed to be non-attached Members for the purposes of Rule 30; as a result, they were afforded more limited parliamentary rights and lesser material and financial advantages than those they would have enjoyed had they been members of a political group within the meaning of Rule 29.

Such a conclusion cannot be drawn, however, in relation to a national political party such as the Front National. Although it is natural for a national political party which puts up candidates in the European elections to want its candidates, once elected, to exercise their mandate under the same conditions as the other Members of the Parliament, that aspiration does not confer on it any right for its elected representatives to form their own group or to become members of one of the groups being formed within the Parliament.

Under Rule 29(2) the formation of a political group within the Parliament requires a minimum number of Members from various Member States and, in any event, Rule 29(1) mentions only the possibility of Members forming themselves into groups according to their political affinities. The rule assigns no specific function in the process of forming political groups to the national political parties to which those Members belong.

(see paras 34-37)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 29 June 2004 (1)

(Appeal – Statement of formation of a group within the meaning of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament – Lack of political affinities – Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group – Cross-appeal – Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC – Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual' concern to a natural or legal person – Inadmissibility of action brought by a national political party)

In Case C-486/01 P,

appellant,

APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 October 2001 in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99

the other party to the proceedings being:

defendant at first instance,

LA COUR, THE COURT (Grand Chamber),,

composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, J.‑P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 9 December 2003,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the hearing on 20 January 2004,

gives the following

‘1.

2.

3.

4....’

‘1.

2.‘1.

Where a point of order is raised under Rule 142, the President may also refer the matter to the committee responsible.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6....’

‘During its meeting on 27 and 28 July 1999 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs examined the request for an interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure referred to it by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 21 July 1999.

Following a detailed exchange of views and by 15 votes in favour and two against, with one abstention, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs interpreted Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure as follows:

The constitution of the [TDI Group] is not in conformity with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

In fact, the constitution of this group, specifically Annex 2 to the letter of constitution addressed to the President of the European Parliament, excludes any political affiliation. It permits the various signatory members total political [independence] within the group.

I propose that the following wording be inserted by way of an interpretative note to Rule 29(1):

“The formation of a group which openly rejects any political character and all political affiliation between its Members is not acceptable within the meaning of this Rule.”

...’

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

hereby:

Skouris

Jann

Timmermans

Rosas

Puissochet

Cunha Rodrigues

Schintgen

Macken

Colneric

von Bahr

Silva de Lapuerta

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 29 June 2004.

Registrar

President

R. Grass

V. Skouris