# C_2017078EN.01004001.xml

| 13.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/40

---

Action brought on 27 January 2017 — ADDE v Parliament

(Case T-48/17)

(2017/C 078/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 21 November 2016 on the 2015 funding of the ADDE party declaring an amount of 500 615,55 euros as ineligible and requesting the reimbursement of the amount of 172 654,92 euros |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 21 November 2016 on the 2015 funding of the ADDE party declaring an amount of 500 615,55 euros as ineligible and requesting the reimbursement of the amount of 172 654,92 euros

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 15 December 2016, inasmuch as it limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and 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-2017-13 appended to this decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 15 December 2016, inasmuch as it limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and 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-2017-13 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 for annulment of the decision of 21 November 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which give rise to a breach of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of 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 (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1) |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which give rise to a breach of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of 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 (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1)

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment

In support of the action for annulment of the decision of 15 December 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 134 of the EU financial regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 134 of the EU financial regulation.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment.

---