T-758/25

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) 4 June 2026 (*) ( Application for annulment – Law governing the institutions – Request from Members of the Parliament to set up a committee of inquiry – Position of the Parliament – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility ) In Case T‑758/25, Christine Anderson, residing in Brussels (Belgium), Marieke Ehlers, residing in Brussels, Charlie Weimers, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Protat, lawyer, applicants, v European Parliament, represented by A.-M. Dumbrăvan, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents, defendant, THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber), composed of G. De Baere (Rapporteur), President, J. Svenningsen and R. Meyer, Judges, Registrar: V. Di Bucci, makes the following Order 1        By their action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants, Ms Christine Anderson, Ms Marieke Ehlers and Mr Charlie Weimers, seek the annulment of the decision of the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament 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 European Parliament – representing more than a quarter of the Members of the Parliament – who, on 21 May 2025, on the basis of Rule 215 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, signed a letter addressed to the President of the Parliament requesting to add to the agenda of the Conference 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 Conference of Presidents took note of the documents submitted to it, including the letter referred to in the preceding paragraph, and heard the President of the Parliament, 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 Conference of Presidents for its consideration’. The Conference 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 Europe Group, the European Conservatives and Reformists Group and the ‘Europe of Sovereign Nations’ group, participated. Following that exchange of views, the Conference of Presidents ‘rejected, by majority, the request to set up a committee of inquiry’.  Forms of order sought 4        The applicants claim that the Court should annul the contested decision. 5        In its plea of inadmissibility, the Parliament contends that the Court should: –        dismiss the action as inadmissible; –        order the applicants to pay the costs.  Law 6        Under Article 130(1) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Court 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 Parliament has applied for a decision on inadmissibility, the Court, 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 Parliament contends, primarily, that the action is inadmissible in that the contested decision is not an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. 9        Under the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Court of Justice of the European Union is to review the legality of acts of the Parliament 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 Parliament cannot be challenged in an action for annulment. That class of acts includes measures of the Parliament which either do not have legal effects or have legal effects only within the Parliament 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 Parliament, 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 Parliament, 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 Parliament, T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 34). 11      By contrast, acts of the Parliament 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 Parliament, 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 Parliament, 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 Parliament, who hold a mandate to represent the peoples of the Member States of the European Union, it has been held that they may, under certain conditions, constitute third parties within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU and bring an action for annulment of an act of the Parliament, 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 Parliament, T‑17/00, EU:T:2002:39, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited; order of 14 March 2023, Mariani v Parliament, T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 36). 13      The first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU provides: ‘In the course of its duties, the European Parliament 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 Union 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 Parliament provides that: ‘1.      In accordance with Article 226 [TFEU] and Article 2 of Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission [of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (OJ 1995 L 113, p. 1)], Parliament 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 Union law which would appear to be the act of an institution or body of the European Union, of a public administrative body of a Member State, or of persons empowered by Union law to implement that law. The subject of the inquiry, as defined by one quarter of Parliament’s 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. Parliament, on a proposal from the Conference 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 Parliament establishes that: ‘The Conference 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 Parliament, ‘the Conference of Presidents shall draw up the draft agenda for Parliament’s part-sessions’. 17      By the contested decision, the Conference 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 Court 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 President of the Parliament finding that a request to set up a committee of inquiry was admissible. The Court 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 Parliament (order of 4 June 1986, Group of the European Right v Parliament, 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 Parliament 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 Court of Justice, in the order of 4 June 1986, Group of the European Right v Parliament (78/85, EU:C:1986:227), ruled that the Parliament’s decision to set up a committee of inquiry was not open to challenge as it concerned the ‘internal organisation of the Parliament’s 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, Group of the European Right v Parliament (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 Parliament, the Parliament now decides to set up a committee of inquiry on a proposal from the Conference 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 Court of Justice in the order of 4 June 1986, Group of the European Right v Parliament (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 Parliament 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 Parliament, 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 Conference 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 Parliament 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 Parliament, T‑196/22, not published, EU:T:2023:143, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 26      Members have the right to request the Conference of Presidents to set up a committee of inquiry if they represent one quarter of the Members of Parliament. It is not disputed that the applicants exercised that right in the present case. 27      However, the possibility for the Parliament, as an institution, to set up a committee of inquiry, as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 226 TFEU, cannot be interpreted as an individual right of each Member 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 Parliament provides that the request to set up a committee of inquiry is to be placed on the plenary agenda on a proposal from the Conference 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 Conference 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 Parliament, referred to in paragraph 15 above, the decisions taken by the Conference of Presidents are the result of a vote. Accordingly, contrary to what the applicants claim, it cannot be held that the Conference 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 Parliament (T‑702/18, not published, EU:T:2019:408), that a decision of the Conference 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 General Court dismissed as inadmissible an action for failure to act brought pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament had unlawfully failed to act on the request by Members to set up a committee of inquiry. The Court noted that, at the meeting of the Conference of Presidents, that request and a proposal to confer responsibility for preparing a report on the same subject on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the Parliament (‘the AGRI Committee’) were debated. The Court stated that, according to the minutes of that meeting, the Conference 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 Conference of Presidents had not explicitly taken the decision not to submit to the plenary of the Parliament 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 Conference of Presidents, the inevitable and intentional consequence of what had been decided. 35      The Court found, in paragraph 24 of the order of 12 June 2019, Durand and Others v Parliament (T‑702/18, not published, EU:T:2019:408), that the decision of the Conference of Presidents constituted an act open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU, since it established its final defined position on the Members’ request and was intended to produce legal effects. Accordingly, the Court 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 Conference of Presidents to decide not to submit the Members’ request to the plenary of the Parliament, should have been raised in the context of such an action. 36      However, the order of 12 June 2019, Durand and Others v Parliament (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 Court found that the decision of the Conference 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 Court stated that the Conference 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 Parliament, which would be contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice arising from the order of 4 June 1986, Group of the European Right v Parliament (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 Parliament and that, therefore, the action must be dismissed as inadmissible.  Costs 39      Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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 Parliament, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Parliament. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber) hereby orders: 1.      The action is dismissed. 2.      Ms Christine Anderson, Ms Marieke Ehlers and Mr Charlie Weimers shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament. Luxembourg, 4 June 2026. V. Di Bucci   G. De Baere Registrar   President *      Language of the case: English.