Corte di giustizia UE/2026

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 4 June 2026 ( * ) ( Application for annulment – Law governing the institutions – Request from Members of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set up a committee of inquiry – Position of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑758/25, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Belgium), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by D. Protat, lawyer, applicants, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by A.-M. Dumbrăvan, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J. Svenningsen and R. Meyer, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By their action under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the applicants, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], seek the annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 3 September 2025 rejecting the request to set up a Committee of Inquiry on transparency and accountability (‘the contested decision’). Background to the dispute 2 The applicants are among the 184 Members of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – representing more than a quarter of the Members of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – who, on 21 May 2025, on the basis of Rule 215 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], signed a letter addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] requesting to add to the agenda of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents of 11 June 2025 a request to establish a Committee of Inquiry on transparency and accountability. 3 According to the minutes of the meeting of 3 September 2025, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents took note of the documents submitted to it, including the letter referred to in the preceding paragraph, and heard the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who stated that ‘she had received a request to set up a committee of inquiry on transparency and accountability, which had met the necessary threshold and which had, therefore, been submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents for its consideration’. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents held an exchange of views in which, inter alia, representatives of the political groups to which the applicants belong, namely the Patriots for [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’ group, participated. Following that exchange of views, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents ‘rejected, by majority, the request to set up a committee of inquiry’. Forms of order sought 4 The applicants claim that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should annul the contested decision. 5 In its plea of inadmissibility, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        dismiss the action as inadmissible; –        order the applicants to pay the costs. Law 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may give a decision on inadmissibility without going to the substance of the case if a defendant makes an application asking it to do so. 7 In the present case, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has applied for a decision on inadmissibility, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], finding that it has sufficient information from the documents in the case file, has decided to rule on that application without taking further steps in the proceedings. 8 In its plea of inadmissibility, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends, primarily, that the action is inadmissible in that the contested decision is not an act open to challenge for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU. 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is to review the legality of acts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. 10 According to settled case-law, acts which relate only to the internal organisation of the work of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot be challenged in an action for annulment. That class of acts includes measures of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which either do not have legal effects or have legal effects only within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as regards the organisation of its work and are subject to review procedures laid down in its Rules of Procedure (see judgments of 23 March 1993, Weber v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑314/91, EU:C:1993:109, paragraphs 9 and 10 and the case-law cited, and of 2 October 2001, Martinez and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑222/99, T‑327/99 and T‑329/99, EU:T:2001:242, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited; order of 14 March 2023, Mariani v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 34). 11 By contrast, acts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which produce or are intended to produce legal effects in regard to third parties or, in other words, acts going beyond the internal organisation of the work of that institution, constitute acts open to challenge before the EU judicature (see judgments of 2 October 2001, Martinez and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑222/99, T‑327/99 and T‑329/99, EU:T:2001:242, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited, and of 6 October 2021, Rivière and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑88/20, not published, EU:T:2021:664, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 12 In the case of Members elected to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who hold a mandate to represent the peoples of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it has been held that they may, under certain conditions, constitute third parties within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU and bring an action for annulment of an act of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], provided that that act goes beyond the scope of the internal organisation of that institution’s work (see judgment of 26 February 2002, Rothley and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑17/00, EU:T:2002:39, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited; order of 14 March 2023, Mariani v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 36). 13 The first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 226 TFEU provides: ‘In the course of its duties, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, at the request of a quarter of its component Members, set up a temporary Committee of Inquiry to investigate, without prejudice to the powers conferred by the Treaties on other institutions or bodies, alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law, except where the alleged facts are being examined before a court and while the case is still subject to legal proceedings.’ 14 Rule 215 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides that: ‘1.      In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 226 [TFEU] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2 of Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the Council and the Commission [of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] right of inquiry (OJ 1995 L 113, p. 1)], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, at the request of one quarter of its component Members, set up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in implementation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law which would appear to be the act of an institution or body of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of a public administrative body of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], or of persons empowered by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law to implement that law. The subject of the inquiry, as defined by one quarter of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] component Members, and the period laid down in paragraph 11 shall not be open to amendments. … 4.      The request to set up a committee of inquiry must precisely specify the subject of the inquiry and include a detailed statement of the grounds for it. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on a proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, shall decide whether to set up a committee and, if so, its numerical strength.’ 15 Rule 26(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] establishes that: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents shall endeavour to reach a consensus on matters referred to it. Where a consensus cannot be reached, the matter shall be put to a vote subject to a weighting based on the number of Members in each political group.’ 16 According to Rule 27(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents shall draw up the draft agenda for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part-sessions’. 17 By the contested decision, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents decided by a majority not to place on the plenary agenda the proposal to set up a committee of inquiry, which had been submitted by at least one quarter of the Members, including the applicants. 18 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice has previously held to be inadmissible, on the ground that the contested act was not capable of producing legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, an action for annulment of a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] finding that a request to set up a committee of inquiry was admissible. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that committees of inquiry had only investigative powers and, consequently, the acts relating to their setting up concerned only the internal organisation of the work of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (order of 4 June 1986, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , 78/85, EU:C:1986:227, paragraph 11). 19 In their observations on the plea of inadmissibility, the applicants state that, in so far as the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provided, in an earlier version, for the automatic setting up of a committee of inquiry in the event of a request from a quarter of its members, it was logical that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, in the order of 4 June 1986, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (78/85, EU:C:1986:227), ruled that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decision to set up a committee of inquiry was not open to challenge as it concerned the ‘internal organisation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] work’. 20 However, it must be held that, in the present case, as in the case giving rise to the order of 4 June 1986, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (78/85, EU:C:1986:227), the effects of the contested decision relate solely to the question of the setting up of a committee of inquiry and therefore do not go beyond the scope of the internal organisation of that institution’s work. 21 In that regard, the applicants do not explain why the fact that, pursuant to Rule 215 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] now decides to set up a committee of inquiry on a proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, and that the setting up of such a committee is no longer automatic, would preclude that act from being classified as an act relating to the setting up of a committee of inquiry and, therefore, would rule out the solution adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in the order of 4 June 1986, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (78/85, EU:C:1986:227). 22 It must therefore be held that the contested decision, inasmuch as it rejected, by a majority, the request to set up a committee of inquiry, constitutes an act relating solely to the internal organisation of the work of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and, consequently, does not constitute an act open to challenge. 23 That conclusion is not called into question by the applicants’ arguments. 24 First, the applicants claim that the contested decision affects their interests in that it denies them of their right to have the plenary assembly vote on their proposal to set up a committee of inquiry, in infringement of Rule 215 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and that it thus impairs their ability to exercise their mandate. They maintain that, if the request to set up a committee of inquiry is admissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents is under an obligation to place it on the agenda of the plenary assembly for a vote. 25 In that regard, it has been held that acts of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which, in substance, produce legal effects capable of affecting the conditions under which Members exercise their mandate, by significantly altering their legal situation, go beyond the scope of the internal organisation of the work of that institution (see order of 14 March 2023, Mariani v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 26 Members have the right to request the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents to set up a committee of inquiry if they represent one quarter of the Members of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It is not disputed that the applicants exercised that right in the present case. 27 However, the possibility for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as an institution, to set up a committee of inquiry, as provided for in the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 226 TFEU, cannot be interpreted as an individual right of each [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to have such a committee set up. 28 In addition, it should be recalled that the procedure laid down in Rule 215(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides that the request to set up a committee of inquiry is to be placed on the plenary agenda on a proposal from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents. 29 Consequently, the applicants cannot claim that they have an individual right to have their request put to a vote in plenary. 30 Furthermore, the request submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents to set up a committee of inquiry forms part of the applicants’ exercise of their mandate. 31 Lastly, it should be noted that, pursuant to Rule 26(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], referred to in paragraph 15 above, the decisions taken by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents are the result of a vote. Accordingly, contrary to what the applicants claim, it cannot be held that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents is under an obligation to respond favourably to any request to set up a committee of inquiry. 32 The applicants cannot therefore validly argue that the contested decision produces legal effects capable of affecting the conditions under which they exercise their mandate, by significantly altering their legal position. 33 Second, according to the applicants, it follows from the order of 12 June 2019, Durand and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑702/18, not published, EU:T:2019:408), that a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents rejecting a request to set up a committee of inquiry is an act intended to produce legal effects capable of altering their legal situation. 34 In that case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed as inadmissible an action for failure to act brought pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had unlawfully failed to act on the request by Members to set up a committee of inquiry. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] noted that, at the meeting of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, that request and a proposal to confer responsibility for preparing a report on the same subject on the Committee on Agriculture and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the AGRI Committee’) were debated. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated that, according to the minutes of that meeting, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, by a majority, agreed to put the second proposal to a vote first, instead of the first proposal, and decided, by a majority of votes, to entrust the AGRI Committee with preparing a report. It stated that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents had not explicitly taken the decision not to submit to the plenary of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the request to set up a committee of inquiry, noting that it was clear from those minutes that the non-submission of that request was, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, the inevitable and intentional consequence of what had been decided. 35 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found, in paragraph 24 of the order of 12 June 2019, Durand and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑702/18, not published, EU:T:2019:408), that the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents constituted an act open to challenge for the purposes of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, since it established its final defined position on the Members’ request and was intended to produce legal effects. Accordingly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that, provided that the other conditions for the admissibility of an action for annulment based on that article were met, the arguments on the substance, calling into question the competence of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents to decide not to submit the Members’ request to the plenary of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], should have been raised in the context of such an action. 36 However, the order of 12 June 2019, Durand and Others v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑702/18, not published, EU:T:2019:408), cannot be interpreted in a manner going beyond what was necessary to resolve the dispute, namely that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents, in so far as its purpose was to instruct the AGRI Committee to draw up a report, constituted a position on the Members’ request, leading to the inadmissibility of the action for failure to act. 37 In particular, since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Presidents had not explicitly taken a decision on the request to set up a committee of inquiry, that order cannot be interpreted as meaning that the rejection of such a request would produce legal effects going beyond the internal organisation of the work of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which would be contrary to the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice arising from the order of 4 June 1986, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (78/85, EU:C:1986:227). 38 It follows from the foregoing that the contested decision does not produce legal effects going beyond the internal organisation of the work of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that, therefore, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible. Costs 39 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. As the applicants have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in accordance with the form of order sought by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. On those grounds, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Luxembourg, 4 June 2026. V. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] G. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.