62023TJ1189_RES
Case T‑1189/23
Identité et Démocratie Parti (ID Parti)
v
Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations
Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 September 2025
(Law governing the institutions – Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations – Decision imposing a financial sanction on a political party – Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 – Non-contractual liability)
European Union law – Statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations – Financial sanctions imposed by the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations – Sanction imposed on a political party for the intentional provision of incorrect information – Concept of intentional provision of incorrect information – A party maintaining, on social media networks, posts mentioning a former board member as being a current board member, in the knowledge that this was inaccurate – Not included
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1141/2014, Art. 27(2)(a)(vi))
(see paragraphs 74-100, 102-110, 117)
Résumé
Hearing an action for annulment and for damages, which it upholds in part, the General Court rules for the first time on a decision of the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (‘the Authority’), by which the latter imposed a financial sanction under Article 27 of Regulation No 1141/2014. (
1
)
The applicant, Patriotes.eu, formerly Identité et Démocratie Parti (ID Parti), is registered as a European political party. On 9 March 2022, it sent the Authority a letter containing, in an annex, inter alia, an updated list of the its board members, which, since 16 February 2022, no longer included the name of one of its members (‘the board member in question’). Since that amendment was not immediately taken into account on the applicant’s website and social media networks, the Authority sent to it, on 23 March 2023, a request for information concerning the inconsistencies between, first, the communication of 9 March 2022, and second, the posts on its website and social media networks.
After several exchanges, the Authority opened, on 14 June 2023, an investigation in respect of the applicant for potentially inaccurate information on the composition of its board. By letter of 28 September 2023, the applicant, after setting up a new website no longer referring to the board member in question, informed the Authority that it had been decided to maintain the posts, on social media networks, where the board member in question was presented as a current member of its board.
By decision of 25 October 2023 (‘the contested decision’), the Authority imposed a financial sanction on the applicant pursuant to Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, on the ground that it had maintained, on social media networks, inaccurate posts presenting the board member in question as a current member of its board, which was no longer the case.
Findings of the Court
First, the Court interprets Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014. For the purposes of the present case, the Court limits the interpretation of that provision to situations where the European political party concerned has, at any time, intentionally provided incorrect information.
First of all, as regards the literal interpretation, the Court finds, in the first place, that that provision does not specify the addressee or the method of transmission of incorrect information. Nevertheless, it notes that the word ‘provided’ used in that provision refers, in the usual meaning in everyday language, to the idea of submitting, communicating or producing what is required. In addition, combined with the word ‘information’, the word ‘provided’ is used in other provisions of Regulation No 1141/2014 (
2
) to refer to the transmission of information, by European political parties and European political foundations to various competent authorities, required in a procedural context. By contrast, when Regulation No 1141/2014 refers to the transmission of information to the public, use is made of the expression ‘be available’, (
3
) and when information intended to be published on the internet is dealt with, the words used are ‘available online’ and ‘[made] public’. (
4
) Accordingly, the expression ‘provided incorrect … information’ used in Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014 refers to the idea of submitting, communicating or producing incorrect required information.
In the second place, the Court notes that the adverb ‘intentionally’ refers, in the usual meaning in everyday language, to an act carried out with intention, deliberately, with the result that the expression ‘intentionally provided … incorrect information’ militates in favour of an interpretation, according to which the European political party, when submitting, communicating or producing the required information, is aware of the inaccuracy of that information, but deliberately decides to submit, communicate or produce it.
Lastly, it points out that the expression ‘at any time’ indicates, in the usual meaning in everyday language, that something may occur at any time during a given period. In that context, that expression leads to an interpretation according to which the European political party decides, at any time, deliberately to submit, communicate or produce incorrect required information.
Those considerations therefore militate in favour of a literal interpretation of Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, according to which that provision applies to situations where the European political party deliberately decides, at any time, to submit, communicate or produce incorrect required information, in the knowledge that it was inaccurate.
Next, as regards the contextual interpretation, the Court recalls, in the first place, that it is apparent from Regulation No 1141/2014, which governs the legal and financial framework of European political parties, that the latter are required to provide information to the Authority, both for the purposes of registration and throughout their existence, on the conditions for registration and the governance provisions linked, in particular, to the statutes, but also on their financial situation, by submitting, inter alia, their annual financial statements, an external audit report and the list of their donors and contributors and their respective donations and contributions.
In the second place, the Court observes, first, that the Authority is to establish and manage a register of European political parties and European political foundations (
5
) that contains data, particulars and documents submitted with applications for registration and data, particulars and documents which are subsequently submitted. (
6
) That register provides a public service for the benefit of transparency, accountability and legal certainty, and is to be operated by the Authority in a way which provides appropriate access to, and certification of, information contained in it. (
7
) Second, the Court holds that the Parliament is to make public on a website the statutes of all European political parties, the documents submitted as part of their application for registration and any amendments notified in that regard, as well as their annual financial statements and external audit reports, the names of their donors and their corresponding reported donations or their reported contributions. (
8
) It therefore follows from the provisions of Regulation No 1141/2014 (
9
) that information concerning European political parties, in particular information considered to be of substantial public interest, is to be made available to the public by competent authorities, including the Authority, so that the public can have appropriate access to it. By contrast, that regulation does not lay down any obligation for European political parties to make information available to the public.
In the last place, the Court states that the other types of infringements provided for in Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, such as the intentional failure to provide information by European political parties or the existence of material omissions or misstatements in their annual financial statements, entail sanctions in the event of non-compliance by those parties with the requirements to communicate information to competent authorities.
All the foregoing militates in favour of a contextual interpretation of Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, according to which that provision applies to situations where the European political party intentionally provides incorrect information to the competent authorities, including the Authority.
Lastly, as regards the teleological interpretation, the Court holds, first, that the ultimate objective pursued by Regulation No 1141/2014 is to strengthen European political awareness and European representative democracy. (
10
) Moreover, the Court observes that the strengthening of transparency of European political parties (
11
) and the strengthening of their obligation of accountability (
12
) are also amongst the objectives pursued by that regulation.
In the second place, the Court finds that, by adopting Regulation No 1141/2014, the legislature wished to achieve the aforementioned objectives by establishing a regulatory framework intended to ensure that information concerning European political parties considered to be of substantial public interest is made available to the public by competent authorities in order to enable the public to have appropriate access to that information and to scrutinise effectively the activities of those parties.
Therefore, a teleological interpretation of Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014 results in that provision applying to situations where the European political party intentionally provides incorrect information to the competent authorities within such a regulatory framework.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court holds that Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, in so far as it covers situations where the European political party concerned has, at any time, intentionally provided incorrect information, must be interpreted as applying to situations where such a party intentionally provides incorrect information to the competent authorities, including the Authority, in the context of its obligations under that regulation.
Second, the Court examines whether the Authority was right in imposing a financial sanction under Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014 in the present case. In that regard, it observes that that authority imposed the financial sanction on the applicant under that provision, on the ground that it had maintained, on social media networks, posts mentioning the board member in question as being a current member of its board in the knowledge that they were inaccurate. The Court states, first, that that provision applies to situations where the European political party intentionally provides incorrect information to the Authority in the context of its obligations under that regulation. Second, it is apparent from its wording that that provision applies to situations where a European political party intentionally ‘provides’ incorrect information. However, the verb ‘to maintain’, which means, in the usual sense in everyday language, ‘to keep’, ‘to preserve’ or ‘not to modify’, does not have the same scope as the verb ‘to provide’, which refers, inter alia, to the idea of submitting, communicating or producing what is required.
In the light of those considerations, the Court holds that, by imposing a financial sanction on the applicant under Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation No 1141/2014, on the ground that it had maintained, on social media networks, posts mentioning the former board member in question as being a current member of its board in the knowledge that they were inaccurate, the Authority erred in law. Accordingly, it annuls the contested decision.
By contrast, the Court rejects the applicant’s claims for compensation.
(
1
)	Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations (OJ 2014 L 317, p. 1).
(
2
)	See, inter alia, Article 23(4), the first subparagraph of Article 24(4), Article 25(6) or Article 29(1) of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
3
)	Recital 41 of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
4
)	Article 7(1) and Article 32 of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
5
)	Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
6
)	Recital 2 and Article 1 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2401 of 2 October 2015 on the content and functioning of the Register of European political parties and foundations (OJ 2015 L 333, p. 50).
(
7
)	Recital 4 of Delegated Regulation 2015/2401.
(
8
)	Article 32(1)(a) and (d) to (f) of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
9
)	See, inter alia, recital 33 of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
10
)	Recitals 1 and 23 of Regulation No 1141/2014.
(
11
)	Recitals 24, 33, 34 and 38 of Regulation 1141/2014.
(
12
)	Recitals 26 and 33 of Regulation No 1141/2014.