The European Parliament was entitled to require the presentation of a digital Covid-19 certificate of vaccination, test or recovery as introduced by Regulation 2021/953 or an equivalent certificate in order to grant access to its premises, the General Court of the European Union ruled on Wednesday 27 April (Joined Cases T-710, 722, 723/21).
Examining for the first time the legality of restrictions imposed by the EU institutions during the Covid-19 pandemic, it rejected the appeals of several MEPs, including Robert Roos (ECR, the Netherlands) and Virginie Joron (Identity and Democracy, France), who believe this measure, applied between the end of October 2021 and the end of January 2022, disproportionately infringed the free exercise of their mandate.
The General Court held, first of all, that the Parliament did not need the express authorisation of the EU legislator to adopt the contested decision, as it fell within its power of internal organisation.
By imposing an additional condition on access to its buildings, the contested decision certainly constitutes an interference with the free and independent exercise of the mandate of MEPs. Nevertheless, in the General Court’s view, it pursues a legitimate aim of balancing two competing interests in the context of a pandemic, namely the continuity of the European Parliament’s activities and the health of the people in its buildings. The measure is also time-limited and reviewed regularly.
As regards an alleged infringement of the immunities granted to MEPs, the General Court notes that it is not apparent from either Protocol No. 7 on the privileges and immunities of the EU or from the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure that the Parliament could not adopt the measures at issue. On the contrary, the Rules of Procedure expressly provide that the right of MEPs to participate in the work of the Parliament shall be exercised in accordance with its provisions (Rule 5).
In the third place, the General Court holds that the processing of personal data by the Parliament under the contested decision is not unlawful or unfair. This processing pursues the public interest objective of protecting public health and is carried out in a transparent and fair manner, as the European Parliament has previously communicated to this effect.
Furthermore, the General Court found that the contested decision did not disproportionately infringe the right to physical integrity. In view of the epidemiological situation and the scientific knowledge available at the time of their adoption, the measures in question were necessary and appropriate, in the General Court’s view, with the requirement to present a Covid certificate reducing the risk of transmission of Covid-19.
Finally, the applicants have not demonstrated the existence of less stringent but equally effective measures. Thus, in the absence of the measures, a person neither unvaccinated nor recovered, potentially carrying the virus, could have had free access to the Parliament and risked infecting others.
However, the General Court stressed that the measures must be periodically re-evaluated in the light of the health situation in the EU and in the Parliament’s three places of work and that they must apply only for the period during which the exceptional circumstances justifying them persist. (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)