Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

1. Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities.

2. A political group must comprise Members from more than one Member State. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-three if they come from two Member States, eighteen if they come from three Member States and fourteen if they come from four or more Member States.

3. A Member may not belong to more than one group.

4. The President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set up. This statement shall specify the name of the group, its members and its bureau.

5. The statement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

1. Members who do not belong to a political group shall be provided with a secretariat. The detailed arrangements shall be laid down by the Bureau on a proposal from the Secretary-General.

2. The Bureau shall also determine the status and parliamentary rights of such Members.

- nominations for the positions of President, Vice-Presidents and Quaestors (Rule 13);

- the opportunity to put questions to the Council or the Commission for an oral answer and to request that they be placed on the agenda of Parliament (Rule 42);

- tabling a proposal for a recommendation to the Council concerning subjects under Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union, or where Parliament has not been consulted on an international agreement within the scope of Rule 97 or Rule 98 (Rule 49);

- debates on topical and urgent subjects of major importance (Rule 50);

- renewed referral to Parliament under Rule 71(3);

- tabling a proposal to reject the Council's common position (Rule 79);

- tabling amendments to the Council's common position (Rule 80);

- proposals to request the Commission and the Council to take part in a debate before negotiations with an applicant State commence (Rule 96);

- proposals to request the Council not to authorise the opening of negotiations on the conclusion, renewal or amendment of an international agreement until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate on the basis of a report from the responsible committee (Rule 97);

- tabling of amendments and recommendations drafted by the responsible committee within the framework of the common foreign and security policy (Rule 104);

- proposals to amend the draft agenda of Parliament (Rule 111);

- proposals for urgent debate (Rule 112);

- requests for a split vote (Rule 131);

- requests for voting by roll call (Rule 134);

- tabling amendments for consideration in plenary session (Rule 139);

- requests for referral back to committee (Rule 144);

- requests for closure of a debate (Rule 145);

- requests for adjournment of a debate (Rule 146);

- requests for suspension or closure of the sitting (Rule 147);

- contesting an interpretation of the Rules of Procedure by the responsible committee (Rule 180).

1. Should doubt arise over the application or interpretation of these Rules of Procedure, the President may, without prejudice to any previous decisions in this field, refer the matter to the committee responsible for examination.

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

2. The committee shall decide whether it is necessary to propose an amendment to the Rules of Procedure. In this case it shall proceed in accordance with Rule 181.

3. Should the committee decide that an interpretation of the existing Rules is sufficient, it shall forward its interpretation to the President who shall inform Parliament.

4. Should a political group or at least thirty-two Members contest the committee's interpretation, the matter shall be put to the vote in Parliament. Adoption of the text shall be by simple majority provided that at least one third of Parliament's component Members are present. In the event of rejection, the matter shall be referred back to the committee.

5. Uncontested interpretations and interpretations adopted by Parliament shall be appended in italic print as explanatory notes to the appropriate Rule or Rules, together with decisions on the application of the Rules of Procedure.

6. These explanatory notes shall constitute precedents for the future application and interpretation of the Rules concerned.

...

Facts

The individual signatory members affirm their total political independence of one another. And hence:

- freedom to vote independently both in committee and in plenary session,

- each member shall refrain from speaking on behalf of the Members of the group as a whole,

- the purpose of meetings of the group shall be to allocate speaking time and to settle any administrative and financial matters concerning the group,

- the Bureau of the group shall be made up of representatives of the individual members.

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 comformity 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.

...

Procedure

Forms of order sought by the parties

- annul the Parliament's decision of 14 September 1999 interpreting its Rules of Procedure;

- declare the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure proposed by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to be contrary to the Community legal order, the rule of law, the founding principles of the Union and fundamental rights;

- order the defendant to pay the costs.

- annul the Parliament's decision of 14 September 1999 dissolving the TDI Group;

- restore to the members of that group all their rights and privileges, both material and non-material, with retroactive effect to 19 July 1999, the date on which the President of the Parliament was notified of the formation of the TDI Group;

- reconstruct the careers of staff made available to the TDI Group in such a way that its assistants, technical aides and secretaries may be placed in the situation which ought to have been theirs, regard being had to the grades and steps which they would have had as members of the staff of a parliamentary group;

- order payment to the TDI Group, with effect from 19 July 1999, of the various fundings intended for political groups under the rules applicable to them;

- order the defendant to pay costs and lawyers' fees in the amount of FRF 52 500.

- annul the Parliament's decision of 14 September 1999 declaring the formation of the TDI Group to be incompatible with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

- in the alternative, declare Rules 29(1) and 30 of the Rules of Procedure, taken together, to be illegal and inapplicable under Article 241 EC;

- order the defendant to pay the costs.

- dismiss the action as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded;

- order the applicant or applicants, as the case may be, to pay the costs.

Admissibility

First plea: non-existence of the contested act in Cases T-327/99 and T-329/99

I am sure you remember that during its meeting on 27 and 28 July, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs ... examined a request for interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure put forward by the Conference of Presidents during the meeting on 21 July.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs ruled as follows: The constitution of the Technical Group of Independent Members, a mixed group, is not in accordance with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure ... . In fact, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs continues, 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.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs requests that the following interpretation be inserted into Rule 29(1) of our Rules of Procedure: 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.

Mr Dell' Alba, one thing is clear: I know what I said yesterday, and not only do I know it, but I have here, in front of me, the text which I read out yesterday, and which nobody can dispute.

We have a procedure which makes provision for the adoption of the Minutes and which makes provision so that Members who think that the Minutes are not in line with what has been said can choose not to adopt them. I too, have the feeling that my ideas have indeed not been accurately reported, given the differences between the way that I expressed them and the way I see them reported here today.

The only thing I can do is, of course, to retain the correction Mr Napolitano is demanding, as I am more qualified than anyone to tell if my words have been correctly reported. Therefore, I cannot refuse to include this correction.

For the moment, I would ask everyone to present the corrections which they consider necessary to the Minutes, on other points as well as this one. In accordance with the way we have always done things, I will then declare the Minutes adopted with the corrections I have been informed of. Only afterwards will we proceed to the vote on your opposition to the interpretation.

Second plea: non-actionable nature of the act of 14 September 1999

Third plea: that the applicants are not directly and individually concerned by the act of 14 September 1999

Substance

The first plea: that the act of 14 September 1999 is based on an incorrect reading of Rule 29(1)

Second plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the lack of a legal basis, inasmuch as the Parliament was wrong to review conformity of the TDI Group with Rule 29(1) and to take the view that the members of that group did not share political affinity

...

At the inaugural session of our Parliament, Members on the Bonino List took the initiative of proposing to all Members not belonging to a political group that they should form themselves into a single mixed group. The objective was to put an end to the discriminatory treatment of non-attached Members under both the Parliament's Rules of Procedure and internal financial and administrative provisions. At a time when the Parliament is required to take on new tasks and responsibilities, we felt it our duty, even at the risk of giving the impression of being intent on forming political alliances contra naturam, to denounce the discrimination which has been going on for twenty years and is unworthy of a democratic parliament because it rides roughshod over the respect due to the will of the people.

...

In the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure adopted by a vote in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs which you will be asked to approve or reject during this session, it is said ... that the TDI Group must be dissolved because its members have subscribed to a statement under which they abjure any political affinity and assert the total independence of the political representatives of which the group is comprised. It is indeed a mixed group which we wished to form prior to having it recognised, finally, by the [Rules of Procedure].

Third plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment in regard to the members of the TDI Group

The first limb

- the denial to the two representatives of the non-attached Members at the conference of presidents of the voting rights enjoyed by the chairmen of the political groups or their representatives stems from Rule 23;

- the fact that the non-attached Members, unlike the political groups, may not table a motion for a resolution at the conclusion of the debate on the election of the Commission stems from Rule 33;

- the fact that non-attached Members are excluded from the work of the Parliament's delegation to the Conciliation Committee, whilst the political groups are represented either in that delegation or in the latter's internal preparatory meetings stems from Rule 82;

- the fact that a non-attached Member can enjoy the benefit of the parliamentary privileges conferred on the political groups only with the support of 31 other Members stems from the various provisions of the Rules of Procedure identified at paragraph 4 above;

- the fact that non-attached Members of the same political tendency, unlike the political groups, do not have the right to explain their collective position on a final vote stems from Rule 137;

- the fact that the non-attached Members are not taken into consideration on allocating the offices of President of the Parliament and of Quaestor, President and Vice-President of Committees and interparliamentary delegations mentioned in Chapters XX and XXI of the Rules of Procedure, that they are taken into consideration on a secondary basis for the allocation of posts of members of those committees and delegations and that they are excluded from the ad hoc delegations established by the Conference of Presidents and the delegation to the Conference of European Affairs Committees referred to in Rule 56 of the Rules of Procedure stems from application of the D'Hondt method used by the Parliament for allotting the abovementioned posts, and from the fact that the representatives of the non-attached Members sitting on the Conference of Presidents, the competent body in that regard, do not have a right to vote;

- the difference of treatment applied as between non-attached Members and political groups in terms of secretarial staff is the result of decisions by the Bureau of the Parliament adopted under Rule 22;

- the different treatment accorded to non-attached Members and to political groups in regard to the allocation of credits under budget item 3707 on specific expenditure of the Parliament for secretarial costs, administrative and operating costs and costs in connection with the political activities of the political groups and non-attached Members stems from decisions of the Bureau of the Parliament adopted under Rule 22;

- the fact that non-attached Members, unlike the political groups, are excluded from the benefit of services provided by the Parliament, particularly in regard to simultaneous interpretation, is the consequence of the Parliament's administrative rules concerning meetings of the political groups.

The second limb

The group is open to members subscribing to a European association of sovereign nation States and accepts the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and parliamentary democracy.

EDD advocates the construction of a stable and democratic Europe of nation States founded on the diversity and cultures of its peoples. It is open to persons who are reticent concerning increased European integration and centralisation.

The third limb

Fourth plea: infringement of the principle of democracy

Fifth plea: infringement of the principle of proportionality

Sixth plea: infringement of the principle of freedom of association

Seventh plea: disregard of the parliamentary traditions common to the Member States

Eighth plea: infringement of essential procedural requirements

The first limb

The second limb

The third limb

All the formalities concerning the formation of a group were observed. The mixed group is not inconsistent with the existence of other groups as a means of bringing non-attached Members out of limbo. A lack of political affinities is also to be observed in other groups in the European Parliament ... The status of individual parliamentarian is not effective. It is not for the other groups to decide on the creation or not of other groups ... Rule 29 does not require proof of such political affinities. At a minimum level, a minimum of affinities on a minimum common basis.

I would also like to say very briefly, if you do not mind, why, in our opinion, this interpretation must not be upheld. Rule 29(4) of our Rules of Procedure states that a group declaration must show the designation of the group, the names of its members, and the composition of its bureau. These are the only three requirements stipulated in our Rules of Procedure.

If, ladies and gentlemen, you choose to interpret the rule in a way which goes beyond the letter of Parliament' s law, even though it is extremely clear, perhaps out of scorn for the rights of minorities or as a way of expressing the large Parties' hegemonic desires, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that you would be creating an extremely important and damaging precedent which might rebound on any of the Groups or sub-groups of this House one day.

You would, in effect, be allowing the majority of the House, the way it currently stands, to make decisions on political allegiances which might exist between any MEPs who may nevertheless have signed the constitution of a group, and we know very well that there are, even within groups with a majority, factions which are certainly in disagreement with one another on a common political programme.

Ninth plea: presumption of misuse of procedure

Costs