C-201/89

My Lords, journalist, Mr Detlef Puhl, to write a pamphlet which was entitled 'Gegen Faschismus und Rassismus in Europa'. A translation was made into French and entitled 'Non au racisme et au fascisme en Europe'. The German version contained an 1. The issue in this case is whether this introduction by Mr Rudi Arndt, who at Court or a French court has jurisdiction that time was a Member of the European over allegedly tortious acts committed on Parliament ('MEP') and the President of the the premises of the European Parliament in Socialist Group. The French version Strasbourg. contained a joint introduction by Mr Arndt and by Mr Ernest Glinne, the Group's Vice-President. The cover and inside front page of each pamphlet featured, apart from the title and Mr Puhl's name, the name and motif of the Socialist Group. The inside 2. The history of the case goes back to back page of the German version gave the 1984 when, at the instigation of its Socialist Socialist Group as the 'publisher' and Group, the European Parliament set up a Mr Arndt as the 'person responsible' committee of inquiry into the rise of fascism ('verantwortlich'). In the French version, the and racism in Europe. An application by the Socialist Group was stated to be the Group of the European Right, represented 'responsible publisher' (l'éditeur by its President, Jean-Marie Le Pen, for the responsable'). The German version was annulment of the decision instituting the printed by a German printer, Thoma Druck committee was declared inadmissible by GmbH, and the French version by a Belgian Order of the Court of 4 June 1986 in company, Printéclair SPRL of Brussels. Case 78/85 Group of the European Right v Parliament [1986] ECR 1753. In the light of the report of the committee, the European Parliament, together with the Council, the Representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council, and the Commission, on 11 June 1986 adopted a 4. An English-language pamphlet was also declaration against racism and xenophobia commissioned from a British journalist, (Official Journal 1986, C 158, p. 1). Andrew Bell. This pamphlet, entitled 'Against racism and fascism in Europe', contained a joint foreword by Mr Arndt and Mr Alf Lomas, a British MEP. The cover and inside front page again featured the name and motif of the Socialist Group. 3. With a view to publicizing that On the inside back page, it was stated that declaration and the work of the further copies of the pamphlet could be parliamentary committee which preceded it, obtained from the Labour Group of MEPs the Socialist Group commissioned a German or from the Socialist Group at its head-

8. On appeal, the cour d'appel of Colmar (second Civil Chamber), found that it was 6. Mr Le Pen and the French political necessary to seek a preliminary ruling 'on party, 'Front national', of which he is the interpretation of the relevant provisions president, considered that the pamphlets of Community law'. It therefore referred the were defamatory of them and brought following question to this Court: proceedings before the tribunal de grande instance of Strasbourg claiming FF 500 000 in damages for defamation under Article 1382 of the French Civil Code and 'Does the Court of Justice of the European under Article 29 of the French Law of Communities have jurisdiction over the acts 29 July 1881 on the freedom of the press. described above in so far as they were The action was directed against the two committed on the premises of the European journalists, Mr Puhl and Mr Bell, against Parliament in Strasbourg?' Mr Arndt, against the two printers, and against 13 individual socialist and social- democratic parties from the different EEC Member States. 9. It is necessary at the outset to determine the scope of the question, which is not framed as a question of interpretation and which does not refer to any provisions of Community law. As phrased, the question 7. The first-instance court dismissed the appears to be limited to asking whether the action in so far as it was directed against jurisdiction of this Court arises merely Mr Arndt, ruling that he enjoyed immunity because the acts complained of took place from legal proceedings in national courts by on the premises of the European Parliament. virtue of Articles 8 to 10 of the Protocol on That is a straightforward question and the Privileges and Immunities of the European answer I think is clear. Communities ('the Protocol') and that under Articles 178 and 215(2) of the EEC Treaty, only the Court of Justice was competent to rule on actions for damages proceeding from acts of the Community 10. However, examination of the arguments institutions or their servants. The court of the parties, and of the views of the ruled that it was competent to deal with the tribunal de grande instance, which are action in relation to the other defendants summarized in the order for reference, and that the fact that the pamphlets were indicates that the cour d'appel also seeks distributed on the premises of the guidance on the question whether the juris­ Parliament did not constitute a bar to its diction of national courts is excluded for a

11. It should be noted that there is arguably a further strand to the issue of jurisdiction, namely, the scope of the immunity from 14. That proposition cannot be accepted. national legal proceedings enjoyed by There is nothing in the provisions set out Members of the European Parliament by above which confers jurisdiction on the virtue of the Protocol. Since the cour Court of Justice purely by reason of the fact d'appel does not appear to seek a ruling on that acts are committed on Community this question, and since neither the parties premises. Nor is the place where an act is to the national proceeding nor the committed a relevant consideration under Commission has submitted argument on this any other relevant provisions of Community question, I am of the view that it falls law conferring jurisdiction on the Court. outside the scope of the reference.

16. The second question is whether the tative organs, notably the Bureau and the liability of the Community under Presidency, whose acts, provided they are Article 215(2) of the Treaty may be in issue performed within the scope of the organ's in this case. Under Article 178 of the EEC authority, will constitute acts of the Treaty, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction Parliament as such (see Case 294/83 in disputes relating to compensation for Les Verts v European Parliament [1986] damage provided for in Article 215(2); and ECR 1339, paragraph 20; Case 34/86 by virtue of Article 183 of the Treaty that Council v Parliament [1986] ECR 2155, jurisdiction is exclusive. Article 215(2) paragraph 8). Article 26 of the Rules of provides: Procedure of the European Parliament (Official Journal 1981, C 90, p. 49), drawn up pursuant to Article 142 of the EEC Treaty, provides for the constitution of political groups, and the combined effect of a number of different provisions of those Rules is to grant to political groups an important role in the functioning of the Parliament. However, there is nothing in the Rules which empowers a political group 'In the case of non-contractual liability, the to act on behalf of the Parliament, or which Community shall, in accordance with the suggests that the acts of a political group general principles common to the laws of are imputable to the Parliament as such. the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties.'

(2) Article 215(2) of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the publication on its own initiative of a political pamphlet by a political group of the European Parliament cannot be regarded as an act of the European Parliament capable of giving rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community.'

I-1194