# C_2014085EN.01002002.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/20

---

Action brought on 13 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

(Case T-678/13)

2014/C 85/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Decision No 110655 of 14 October 2013, which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements should reimburse EUR 45 476,00, having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Decision No 110655 of 14 October 2013, which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements should reimburse EUR 45 476,00, having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence on the part of the author of the act, since the signatory of that act did not have any authority to adopt, sign and notify the contested decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence on the part of the author of the act, since the signatory of that act did not have any authority to adopt, sign and notify the contested decision.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the Parliament did not give the applicant the opportunity to state its views on the discrepancies noted. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the Parliament did not give the applicant the opportunity to state its views on the discrepancies noted.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule of law, in so far as:






  — | contributions in kind are a lawful method of financing; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule of law, in so far as:

—

contributions in kind are a lawful method of financing;

| — | the applicant has been discriminated against in terms of its budget as against other European political parties; |
| --- | --- |

—

the applicant has been discriminated against in terms of its budget as against other European political parties;

| — | the right of an individual to be heard prior to the enactment of a measure adversely affecting him has not been observed. |
| --- | --- |

—

the right of an individual to be heard prior to the enactment of a measure adversely affecting him has not been observed.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, since the Parliament used financial constraints in order to restrict the means of action of a political party whose ideals are not shared by some of the Parliament’s members. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, since the Parliament used financial constraints in order to restrict the means of action of a political party whose ideals are not shared by some of the Parliament’s members.

---