Judgment of the Court Grand Chamber of 5 April 2022, Commission v Council International Maritime Organisation, C-161/20

• Date: 05 April 2022
• Year: 2022

22

freedom and, lastly, the right to privacy and protection of personal data. Furthermore, it holds that, in

view of the epidemiological situation and current scientific knowledge the measures at issue, at the

time they were adopted, were necessary and appropriate. Although it is true that neither vaccination,

tests nor recovery allow transmission of COVID 19 to be completely ruled out, the requirement to

present a valid COVID certificate allows the objective and non-discriminatory reduction of that risk

and thus the objective of protecting health to be achieved.

The Court finds, moreover, that the measures at issue are also proportionate in relation to the

objective pursued. The applicants have not established the existence of less restrictive measures that

are equally effective. Therefore, without the measures at issue, a person who is neither vaccinated

nor recovered, a potential carrier of the virus, could have free access to the Parliament’s buildings,

whilst risking, by the same token, infecting others. Furthermore, the contested decision takes account

of the general epidemiological s ituation in Europe and also the specific situation of the Parliament, in

particular frequent international travel of those with access to its premises. In addition, the measures

at issue are limited in time and reviewed regularly.

Lastly, the Court finds that the practical disadvantages caused by the presentation of a valid certificate

cannot outweigh the protection of the health of others or be treated in the same way as

disproportionate interferences with the applicants’ fundamental rights.

However, it notes that those measures must be reassessed from time to time in the light of the health

situation in the European Union and in the Parliament’s three places of work and that they must apply

only for so long as the exceptional circumstances which justify them continue.

VIII. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS: EXTERNAL COMPETENCE OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2022, Commission v Council

(International Maritime Organisation), C-161/20

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Action for annulment – Council decision, contained in the act of the Permanent Representatives

Committee (Coreper) of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime

Organisation (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to -tank

greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels – Article 17(1) TEU – External representation of

the European Union – Transmission of that submission to the IMO by the Member State holding the

Presidency of the Council, on behalf of the Member States and the Commission

Among the c onventions concluded under the auspices of the International Maritime Organisation

(IMO),

51

one of the specialised agencies of the United Nations, is the International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

52

All the Member States are parties to the IMO Convention and to

the Marpol Convention, whereas the European Union is not a member of either.

51

The IMO, established by the Convention on the International Maritime Organisation, signed in Geneva on 6 March 1948 (United Nations

Treaty Series, Vol. 289, p. 3), in the version applicable to the present proceedings (‘the IMO Convention’), is a specialised agency of the United

Nations with responsibility, inter alia, for the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships.

52

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by two

protocols adopted in 1978 and 1997 (‘the Marpol Convention’).