Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2470
Date: 2014-12-18
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

summary table’ produced after that trilogue), the meetings of the Working Party of Financial Counsellors of 9 April and 2 May 2013, and the trilogue meeting of 25 April 2013. 68 – See, in particular, judgments in Spain v Council (C‑310/04, EU:C:2006:521, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited) and Spain v Council (C‑442/04, EU:C:2008:276, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited). 69 – See, for a more in-depth analysis, Blumann, C., ‘Caractéristiques générales de la coopération interinstitutionnelle’, L’Union européenne carrefour de coopérations, LGDJ, 2000, pp. 29 to 61. 70 – Judgments in Parliament v Council (EU:C:1995:91, paragraph 23) and Greece v Council (EU:C:1988:450, paragraph 16). 71 – This is an important forum, established in the 1980s, trilogues having been introduced by the Joint declaration by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on various measures to improve the budgetary procedure (OJ 1982 C 194, p. 1). 72 – Point 8 of the 2007 Joint Declaration. 73 – They are, none the less, referred to in the 2007 Joint Declaration, adopted before the Treaty of Lisbon, from which it is clear (in point 14) that if an agreement is reached at the stage of first reading in the Parliament through informal negotiations in trilogues, the chair of Coreper is to forward it in the form of amendments to the Commission proposal. 74 – See point 14 of the 2007 Joint Declaration. 75 – Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (OJ 2010 L 304, p. 47). That agreement is incorporated into the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure (as Annex XIII). 76 – See document sent by the Commission, entitled ‘Report: Financial Counsellors WG of 26 February 2013, ECFIN/D2/NL/SN324590’( p. 3). 77 – Ibid. (p. 6): ‘He asked COM to encourage and not to withdraw its proposal’. 78 – Document sent by the Commission, entitled ‘Report: Financial Counsellors WG of 9 April 2013 on MFA, ECFIN/D2/NL dl Ares(2013)’ (pp. 1 and 5). 79 – Document sent by the Commission, entitled ‘ECFIN/D2/NL/ dl Ares (2013) Report: Financial Counsellors WG of 2 May 2013 on the MFA’ (p. 2). 80 – Judgment in Parliament v Council (EU:C:1995:91, paragraphs 27 and 28). 81 – See, in particular, judgments in Council v Bamba (C‑417/11 P, EU:C:2012:718, paragraph 50) and Kendrion v Commission (C‑50/12 P, EU:C:2013:771, paragraphs 41 and 42). 82 – See, to that effect, judgments in Commission v Council (EU:C:2009:590, paragraph 42) and Commission v Council (EU:C:2013:752, paragraph 28). 83 – Furthermore, the fact that the reasons for a procedural decision do not appear in the reference which, under Articles 8(4) and 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission (OJ 2010 L 55, p. 61), must be made to such a decision in the minutes of a meeting or in the summary of acts adopted does not constitute an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. 84 – See, in particular, judgments in Commission v Council (EU:C:2009:590, paragraphs 37 to 39 and 42) and Switzerland v Commission (C‑547/10 P, EU:C:2013:139, paragraph 67). 85 – For case-law which does not accept that a letter from a Competition Commissioner and correspondence between the DG and a Member State constitute acts open to challenge on the ground that they are merely proposals to lessen the restrictive effect of an agreement between undertakings, see judgment in Nefarma v Commission (T‑113/89, EU:T:1990:82). 86 – See judgment in Germany v Council (C‑280/93, EU:C:1994:367, paragraph 36). 87 – Judgment in Deutsche Telekom v Commission (C‑280/08 P, EU:C:2010:603, paragraphs 130 and 131).