# C_2017121EN.01004501.xml

| 18.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/45

---

Action brought on 24 February 2017 — Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament

(Case T-118/17)

(2017/C 121/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Plasschaert and E. Montens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the European Parliament’s decision of December 15th 2016, inasmuch it (i) suspends the payment of the 2017 grant, including the payment of the pre-financing, (ii) limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and (iii) makes the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional on the presentation of a first demand guarantee, and, as a consequence, article I.4.1 of the grant award decision FINS-2017-28 appended to this decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the European Parliament’s decision of December 15th 2016, inasmuch it (i) suspends the payment of the 2017 grant, including the payment of the pre-financing, (ii) limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and (iii) makes the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional on the presentation of a first demand guarantee, and, as a consequence, article I.4.1 of the grant award decision FINS-2017-28 appended to this decision;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

a)   With respect to the decision to suspend the payment of the 2017 grant including the pre-financing amount for IDDE

With respect to the decision to suspend the payment of the 2017 grant including the pre-financing amount for IDDE

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE. In particular, the decision was not taken by fair and impartial authority and IDDE was not properly heard nor granted an effective possibility to comment and dispute the accusations directed at it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE. In particular, the decision was not taken by fair and impartial authority and IDDE was not properly heard nor granted an effective possibility to comment and dispute the accusations directed at it.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches article 208(1) first sentence of the Rules of Application to the Financial Regulation, article 8(a) of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament and article II.13.2 of the Grant Award decision. In particular, the payment of the 2017 grant cannot be suspended based on unverified allegations unrelated to said decision and pertaining allegedly only to the 2015 grant award decision. In addition, the payment of the 2017 grant can only be suspended for reasons of verifications which in present matter have already been performed and have been concluded without any of the alleged suspicions and allegations being definitively confirmed. In consequence, the suspension must be lifted. Finally, the alleged suspicions and presumptions are not sufficient to justify any suspension of the payment. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches article 208(1) first sentence of the Rules of Application to the Financial Regulation, article 8(a) of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament and article II.13.2 of the Grant Award decision. In particular, the payment of the 2017 grant cannot be suspended based on unverified allegations unrelated to said decision and pertaining allegedly only to the 2015 grant award decision. In addition, the payment of the 2017 grant can only be suspended for reasons of verifications which in present matter have already been performed and have been concluded without any of the alleged suspicions and allegations being definitively confirmed. In consequence, the suspension must be lifted. Finally, the alleged suspicions and presumptions are not sufficient to justify any suspension of the payment.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principle of proportionality. In particular, the scope of the measure taken, i.e. the suspension of the payment of the 2017 grant, including its pre-payment, is totally disproportional in comparison to the alleged suspicions and irregularities, even if these would be confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principle of proportionality. In particular, the scope of the measure taken, i.e. the suspension of the payment of the 2017 grant, including its pre-payment, is totally disproportional in comparison to the alleged suspicions and irregularities, even if these would be confirmed.

b)   with respect to the decision limit the pre-financing at 33 % of the maximum grant amount and to make the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional upon the presentation of a first demand bank guarantee

with respect to the decision limit the pre-financing at 33 % of the maximum grant amount and to make the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional upon the presentation of a first demand bank guarantee

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principal of good administration and violates the rights of the defence of IDDE.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the article 6 of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament, article 134 of the financial regulation and article 206 of the Rules of application of the financial regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the requirement to provide a statement of reasons, the rights of the defence and the article 6 of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament, article 134 of the financial regulation and article 206 of the Rules of application of the financial regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality. IDDE has been prejudicially discriminated against in comparison to other foundations and parties which are in objectively similar situations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches the principles of equality of treatment and of proportionality. IDDE has been prejudicially discriminated against in comparison to other foundations and parties which are in objectively similar situations.

---