T-404/25
ECLI:EU:T:2026:121
- Súd
- Všeobecný súd Európskej únie
- IČS
- 62025TO0404
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
Provisional text
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
12 February 2026 ( * )
( Action for failure to act – Application for an order – Application for interim measures – Applicant not represented – Failure to put the application in order – Manifest inadmissibility )
In Case T‑404/25,
Miguel Ángel Navarro Fernández , residing in Madrid (Spain), represented by himself,
applicant,
v
European Parliament,
defendant,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur), President, I. Nõmm and R. Pezzuto, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
makes the following
Order
1 By his action based, in essence, on Articles 265, 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant, Mr Miguel Ángel Navarro Fernández, asks the General Court, first, to declare that the European Parliament unlawfully failed to instruct the European Commission to initiate an infringement procedure against the Kingdom of Spain on account of the ongoing deterioration of the Natura 2000 Network site in Arganda del Rey (Spain), second, to order the Parliament to act within a maximum period of one month by forwarding the file to the Commission or, in the alternative, by itself bringing an action for failure to act against the Kingdom of Spain, third, to order the Commission to carry out an on-site inspection, fourth, to require the Commission to request the Kingdom of Spain to adopt, urgently and immediately, physical protection measures for him and his family and, fifth, to adopt interim measures.
Law
2 According to Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, where an action is manifestly inadmissible, the General Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time, decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
3 In the present case, the Court considers that it has been sufficiently informed by the documents in the file and decides, under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, to give judgment without taking further steps in the proceedings.
4 It must be borne in mind that the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the procedure before the General Court in accordance with Article 53 of that statute, lay down two separate and cumulative conditions as regards the representation before the Courts of the European Union of parties not covered by the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 of that statute, known as ‘non-privileged’ parties. Under the first condition, laid down in the third paragraph of Article 19 of that statute, those parties must be ‘represented by a lawyer’. Under the second condition, laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of that statute, only a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) may represent or assist a party before the Courts of the European Union (judgment of 4 September 2025 , Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO , C‑776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644, paragraph 49, and order of the Vice-President of the Court of 30 October 2025, Arasteh v Commission , C‑590/25 P(R), not published, EU:C:2025:861, paragraph 10).
5 It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the first cumulative condition, laid down in the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which consists in the obligation for non-privileged parties to be ‘represented by a lawyer’, imposes, inter alia, on non-privileged parties a prohibition on ‘self-representation’ before the Courts of the European Union, that is to say that those parties may not under any circumstances represent themselves (judgment of 4 September 2025, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO , C‑776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644, paragraphs 58 and 59; see also, to that effect, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 30 October 2025, Arasteh v Commission , C‑590/25 P(R), not published, EU:C:2025:861, paragraph 11).
6 Given that no derogation from, or exception to, that prohibition is provided for by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice or of the General Court, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself or herself cannot in any circumstances be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action before the Courts of the European Union, even if the applicant is a lawyer authorised to plead before a national court (see judgment of 4 September 2025, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO , C‑776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644, paragraphs 60 and the case-law cited; see also, to that effect, order of the Vice-President of the Court of 30 October 2025, Arasteh v Commission , C‑590/25 P(R), not published, EU:C:2025:861, paragraph 11).
7 In the present case, even if the applicant relies on his status as a lawyer authorised to plead before the Spanish courts, it should be noted that he brought this action on the basis of his signature alone.
8 However, it is also apparent from the case-law that, in view of the seriousness of the consequences which follow from an infringement of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union for the applicant, namely the irremediable declaration of the inadmissibility of his or her action, and in the absence of express indications to the contrary in the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure, the General Court must, where it takes the view that the prohibition on ‘self-representation’ before it has not been complied with and before declaring the action inadmissible, invite the applicant to appoint a new lawyer (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2025, Studio Legale Ughi e Nunziante v EUIPO , C‑776/22 P, EU:C:2025:644, paragraphs 75 to 79 and the case-law cited).
9 In the present case, on 21 October 2025, the Registry of the General Court sent the applicant an initial request to put the application in order by appointing a new representative, in accordance with the requirements of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The applicant responded with a letter not appointing a new representative, but specifying that he was acting himself. On 20 November 2025, the President of the Sixth Chamber decided not to include that letter in the file.
10 On the same day, the Registry of the General Court sent a second request to put the application in order with the same objective as the previous one. The applicant did not respond to it.
11 Having failed to put the application in order within the specified time limit, the action must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.
Costs
12 As the present order has been made before service of the application on the Parliament and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear his own costs pursuant to Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2. Mr Miguel Ángel Navarro Fernández shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 12 February2026.
V. Di Bucci
P. Škvařilová-Pelzl
Registrar
President
* Language of the case: Spanish.