# C_2019093EN.01003601.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/36

---

Appeal brought on 24 January 2019 by the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-829/16, Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés v Parliament

(Case C-60/19 P)

(2019/C 93/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (represented by: A. Varaut, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment under appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment under appeal;

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016 declaring certain expenditure ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year;

| — | order the Parliament to pay the full costs, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Parliament to pay the full costs, and

| — | make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to the amount to be awarded to the appellant in relation to the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (MENL) edited a poster relating to the migration crisis and the Schengen agreement featuring its logo, together with those, in a much smaller size, of the Front National and the Vlaams Belang.

The Parliament declared ineligible the expenditure relating to that poster, considering that it constituted an unfair advantage for a national political party.

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the MENL’s action for annulment of that decision.

The MENL seeks to have the judgment under appeal set aside because of the following errors of law:

| — | The facts of the case have been distorted, since, further to its finding that the Bureau of the Parliament was not aware of the MENL’s defence submissions, the General Court nonetheless found that the latter had been able to defend itself because its defence submissions had been forwarded to an assistant of one of the members of the Bureau; |
| --- | --- |

—

The facts of the case have been distorted, since, further to its finding that the Bureau of the Parliament was not aware of the MENL’s defence submissions, the General Court nonetheless found that the latter had been able to defend itself because its defence submissions had been forwarded to an assistant of one of the members of the Bureau;

| — | Article 41 of the Charter, Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and Article 8 of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (1) were infringed, in that the General Court found that the decision-making work of the Parliament’s services can replace a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 41 of the Charter, Article 16 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and Article 8 of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (1) were infringed, in that the General Court found that the decision-making work of the Parliament’s services can replace a decision of the Bureau of the Parliament;

| — | The General Court erred in rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003, raised pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, by ruling that the content of the prohibition on indirect funding is an indeterminate legal notion while acknowledging that it applied that notion; |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court erred in rejecting the plea of illegality of Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003, raised pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, by ruling that the content of the prohibition on indirect funding is an indeterminate legal notion while acknowledging that it applied that notion;

| — | The General Court misapplied Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003 in finding that the presence of the logo of a political party, whatever its size, on a poster of a European political party constituted, as such, illegal direct funding of that party. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misapplied Article 7 of Regulation No 2004/2003 in finding that the presence of the logo of a political party, whatever its size, on a poster of a European political party constituted, as such, illegal direct funding of that party.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1.

---