Court cases pending at the European Court of Justice dramatically expose the undemocratic state of the EU

Two cases pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-139/24 P and C-148/24 P) concern the violation of the following fundamental values, which are decisive for a democratic state governed by the rule of law:

The independence and impartiality of judges in the EU courts
The fundamental right of EU citizens to effective legal protection
The prohibition of pharmacological experiments on humans without their informed and therefore voluntary consent

The two proceedings originate from two actions for annulment (Art. 263(4) TFEU) brought by an Italian father of minors against the unconditional five-year marketing authorisation granted by implementing decisions of the European Commission for the two so-called mRNA Covid-19 “vaccines” Comirnaty from Pfizer/BioNTech (T-109/23) and Spikevax from Moderna (T-108/23).¹
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cEh5keOr89SfE4f1T-guRmw-nsV9Kvvi/view?usp=drivesdk
¹ As an example, reference is made to the documents in the case concerning the action for annulment against the marketing authorisation for Comirnaty of Pfizer/BioNTech.
Due to the “vaccination” propaganda rolled out by the European Commission and the Italian government and the gross deception about the effective nature, effect and risk profile of these two substances, which are also authorised for use in children, the mother of the two children had obtained permission in court in Italy to have the children injected with these experimental substances based on gene technology, even against the father’s will.
Despite the father’s desperate objection, the courts of first instance granted the mother’s application in blind faith in the official presentation of the nature, effect and alleged safety of these experimental substances. The Italian courts did not accede to the father’s request to refer the question of the legality of the then still conditional marketing authorisation for these two substances to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU).
The father therefore brought two actions for annulment (Art. 263(4) TFEU) before the General Court of the European Union in 2023 against the now unconditional marketing authorisation for these two substances.
The results of the proceedings at first instance reveal the undemocratic state of the EU, including in its judicial instances, and are of dramatic importance for all EU citizens, which must not be withheld from the public.
Appeals have already been lodged against the decisions of the General Court.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uvBPD5-QyLFLRr_gRb-jjtc85Tyrjpca/view
1. Highly problematic composition of the courts in the European Union
The independence and impartiality of judges are fundamental prerequisites for a fair trial (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
But this fundamental requirement of a fair trial is absurdly not guaranteed in the EU’s courts!
The two cases now pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union (the opposing party is the European Commission) concern, among other things, the illegality of the amendment to the definition of gene therapy medicinal products introduced by Commission Directive 2009/120/EC. As a result, substances that are merely formally declared as “vaccines against infectious diseases”, regardless of the ingredients and their mode of action, were excluded from the application of the much stricter regulation for the authorisation of gene therapy medicinal products.
This directive was issued in 2009 by the European Commission under the presidency of José Manuel Barroso.
In the proceedings at first instance, the reporting judge was Dr Johannes Christoph Laitenberger, who was a high-ranking political official in the European Commission in various functions for many years until he moved to the position of judge at the General Court in 2019.
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7035/en/
From 2004 to 2005, the judge reporting in the proceedings was a member of Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s cabinet. From 2005 to 2009 he was spokesperson and head of the Commission’s spokesperson service. From 2009 to 2014 he was chief of staff in Commission President José Manuel Barroso’s cabinet.
The European Commission under President Barroso issued Directive 2009/120/EU.
In 2014 Laitenberger was appointed Deputy Director-General of the Commission’s Legal Service, before heading the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition from 2015 to 2019.
According to the fundamental principle internationally recognised in democratic legal systems, both the court and the individual judge must be objectively impartial, that is, provide sufficient guarantees if there is doubt about objectivity for a reasonable person. Even appearances matter.
The General Court at first instance found that, despite the objection to the obvious lack of the necessary independence and impartiality of the judge reporting in the two proceedings, as laid down in Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the judge should not be replaced.
This decision, however, does not correspond to the sense of justice of the ordinary citizen and many lawyers.
2. Fundamental right to effective legal protection denied to EU citizens
The areas in which the EU has legislative powers are constantly expanding, while EU citizens normally do not obtain effective legal protection against acts of the EU institutions that directly affect them, due to a jurisprudence that unlawfully restricts their right to sue.
The situation has become increasingly intolerable for decades. More than 20 years ago, the then Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Sir Francis Geoffrey Jacobs, explained in his Opinion in Case C-50/00 P (see points 37-75 and points 100 and 101) how the restrictive case-law, which violates Article 263 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, denies EU citizens effective legal protection, specifically against acts of the EU institutions that negatively affect a large number of individuals and thereby cause extensive damage.
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=2FD981120FFD45BB98649F2D76EEE DCB?text=&docid=47224&pageIndex=0&doclang=DA&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=41& c2
The actions for annulment brought by the Italian father before the General Court against the unconditional 5-year (renewable) marketing authorisation of the two so-called Covid-19 mRNA “vaccines” (Comirnaty from Pfizer/BioNTech and Spikevax from Moderna) concern unlawful acts of the European Commission that affect all EU citizens (approx. 448 million people) and their future generations. The already known damage caused by these unlawful acts is enormous. And the potential damage is almost inconceivable!
Due to the justified criticism from many EU legal experts, Art. 263(4) TFEU was amended so that any EU citizen can bring an action against regulatory acts that directly affect them and do not entail implementing measures.
Art. 263(4) TFEU now reads as follows:
Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.
The implementing decisions of the European Commission challenged in the two actions for annulment are indisputably of a regulatory nature, as they consist, inter alia, of annexes which essentially have general application and in some cases are even addressed directly to healthcare professionals and users (health authorities etc.) as well as potential vaccinees.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2022/20221010157165/anx_157165_en.pdf
The Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC, Article 11 of Directive 2001/83/EC) and the package leaflet (Article 59 of Directive 2001/83/EC) form an integral part of the marketing authorisation for medicinal products.
The Summary of Product Characteristics is the basis for enabling/guaranteeing healthcare professionals (and thus patients/vaccinees) to use the medicinal product safely and effectively.
The package leaflet provides comprehensive information on the safe and appropriate use of the medicinal product. It is primarily intended for patients/vaccinees.
Despite this obvious factual and legal situation, the General Court at first instance came to the conclusion that the challenged implementing decisions of the European Commission, by which the two so-called Covid-19 “vaccines” were authorised, were directed only at the respective manufacturer (BioNTech and Moderna).
In its attempt to deny the father standing, the court even went so far as to claim (see recital 56 of the court decision) that the European Commission’s implementing decisions did not pharmacologically classify the substance in question (Comirnaty from Pfizer/BioNTech and Spikevax from Moderna), but merely granted authorisation for these substances.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jIHkTCuNUAaT20IaHyIK_e_cnUO4KPVj/view
This, however, corresponds to a misunderstanding of the most rudimentary principles of pharmaceutical law, because it is precisely the authorisation decision that legally determines the pharmaceutical-therapeutic class (category) of the medicinal product for everyone and declares the medicinal product as belonging to this pharmaceutical-therapeutic class (in this specific case “vaccine” versus “advanced therapy medicinal product”) (see Article 59 of Directive 2001/83/EC)!
When the court writes “Insofar as it appears in particular from Annex I to the implementing decision that this medicinal product is an mRNA vaccine whose therapeutic indication is active immunisation in persons aged six years and over for the prevention of Covid-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2, it must be assumed that this information is included in the Summary of Product Characteristics and thus underpins the authorisation granted”, this is an expression of the fact that the European Commission’s implementing decision is apparently denied its effective content and meaning “by hook or by crook”.
This is because a marketing authorisation is not “concretised”, but is granted or not granted for a medicinal product with the pharmaceutical-therapeutic properties indicated in the marketing authorisation (“vaccine” versus “an advanced therapy medicinal product – gene therapy”).
And the properties of the medicinal product indicated in the marketing authorisation have general validity, because they apply not only to the pharmaceutical company submitting the application, but also to the Member States, all authorities, healthcare professionals and vaccinees.
Article 59 of Directive 2001/83/EC provides that the package leaflet must be drawn up in accordance with the Summary of Product Characteristics. It must, among other things, contain the pharmaceutical-therapeutic class or mode of action in a form easily understandable for the patient in order to identify the medicinal product.
In the package leaflet, Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) and Spikevax (Moderna) are referred to as Covid-19 mRNA vaccines, contrary to their actual mode of action and composition.
Both the information for healthcare professionals and the package leaflet are completely misleading in the case of Comirnaty and Spikevax!
The European Commission’s implementing decisions have an abstract-general effect, as they have been used to bring dangerous experimental substances based on gene technology, which in their mode of action correspond to a gene therapy medicinal product, onto the market as a “vaccine” for use by the entire population, right down to the youngest children, in the Covid-19 “vaccination campaign” pushed by the Commission with the predicate “safe”, bypassing all safety measures and precautions.
Apart from the fact that not even the clinical studies originally required for the conditional authorisation of the two substances were carried out with the aim of confirming efficacy and safety, neither genotoxicity studies nor carcinogenicity studies nor mutagenicity studies (i.e. studies of the risk of DNA modification) were carried out.
This has an abstract-general effect on the entire EU population, as it has brought very dangerous experimental substances based on gene technology onto the EU market for mass use through so-called “vaccination campaigns”.
The essential difference between the authorisation procedure for a genetically engineered medicinal product and that for conventional vaccines is that the risk factors to be taken into account for genetically engineered products include the degree of integration of nucleic acid sequences or genes into the human genome, long-term functionality and the risk of oncogenicity.
3.) Violation of the prohibition of pharmacological experiments on humans without their free and informed consent – a frightening totalitarian attitude of the Court in complete contradiction to the principles of EU law
Due to its fundamental importance, the protection of the human genome is enshrined at supranational and international level. See the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of 1997, as well as the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights of the 29th UNESCO General Conference in November 1997.
The fundamental right of humans not to be subjected to pharmacological experiments without their free and informed consent is enshrined at EU and international level (EU Regulation No 536/2014, the Nuremberg Code).
By categorising these substances as “vaccines”, which does not correspond to the actual mode of action of Comirnaty and Spikevax, the population of the EU is grossly deceived and therefore cannot freely give consent to the injection of these substances!
The grossly deceived EU population has been and will de facto be subjected to a criminal pharmacological mass experiment and reduced to experimental animals by the challenged implementing decisions.
This abstract-general effect does not require an implementing legal act, but follows directly and immediately from the implementing decision.
The implementing decision radically breaches Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use and the Nuremberg Code.
The presentation of false facts in the challenged implementing decisions led and leads automatically to involuntary mass treatment with an experimental substance.
The challenged implementing decisions of the European Commission also have an abstract-general and immediate effect with criminal relevance, because despite the fact that the clinical studies originally required to confirm the widespread efficacy and safety (and thus the widespread positive benefit/risk ratio for Comirnaty) were never carried out, they nevertheless received an unconditional marketing authorisation for five years (renewable), and the Commission declared in pure falsehood that the conditions for an unconditional marketing authorisation had been fulfilled.
https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/2022/20221010157165/dec_157165_en.pdf
The placebo groups were dissolved a few months after the start of the “vaccination campaign” under the cynical pretext that the participants in the control group could not for ethical reasons be exposed to any risk of Covid-19 disease.
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-2019-nCoV-Policy-brief-Vaccine-trial-design-2021.1
With the challenged implementing decisions, the European Commission has authorised Comirnaty and Spikevax for mass use on the EU population for five years and can extend them without conditions in the most brutal violation of fundamental principles of EU pharmaceutical law, even though the efficacy and safety of these substances have never been confirmed in clinical trials.
It could hardly be more cynical and criminal, because it deceives and potentially harms approximately 448 million EU citizens!
Finally, the court itself even sets out the reason why both the applicant and his children, as well as every EU citizen, are directly affected by the European Commission’s two implementing decisions in its reasoning.
In point 47 of its decision, the court displays an absolutely unacceptable and frightening totalitarian attitude.
The court claims that the authorities of the Member States have full discretion to decide whether it is appropriate to impose the use of Comirnaty or Spikevax on doctors, if necessary by means of coercive measures!
This is contrary to the most fundamental principles of EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Imposing coercive measures on doctors to use a substance that is demonstrably experimental and based on gene therapy is in line with the thinking of totalitarian regimes, but not with the EU Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights!
This single paragraph in the court’s reasoning has – as an obiter dictum – an extremely dangerous effect and must not be allowed to stand! For if it were to stand, it would amount to an obvious departure of EU jurisdiction from all fundamental principles of EU law!
Since, according to the court, it would be at the discretion of the Member States to apply the experimental substances Comirnaty and Spikevax, which are based on gene technology and whose efficacy and safety have never been confirmed in clinical studies, “even with coercive measures”, the applicant and his children, as well as all EU citizens, have an unmistakable personal existing and present interest in the immediate revocation of the authorisation of Comirnaty and Spikevax as “vaccines”.
According to the court’s frightening authoritarian logic, there is hardly a more direct concern than that of the Italian applicant, his children, indeed all EU citizens, who see themselves at the mercy of the authority of their Member States, which, according to the legally erroneous opinion of the EU court, can also forcibly apply experimental gene technology substances such as Comirnaty and Spikevax to the citizens!
If the European Commission had not treated and authorised Comirnaty (Pfizer/BioNTech) and Spikevax (Moderna) as a conventional vaccine, but had treated and declared them as what they are, namely experimental substances based on gene technology:

their (even conditional) authorisation for use in connection with “vaccination campaigns” for the entire population would never have been possible,
the mother of the applicant’s minor children would probably never have had the idea of obtaining court permission to expose their two minor children to this injection, even against the father’s desperate objection,
the competent courts in the Member State of Italy would never have granted permission for gene technology and experimental treatment of healthy children, and
the entire EU population would probably not have been prepared to have this substance injected, even repeatedly, into themselves (and their children!).

The Court of Justice of the European Union must now decide whether the Italian father’s action for annulment can be admitted for a decision on the merits.
Rarely has a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the admissibility of actions for annulment brought by individual applicants had such far-reaching fundamental significance.
C-139/24 P Appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union