Case C‑73/17

French Republic

v

European Parliament

(Action for annulment — Institutional law — Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union — European Parliament — Concept of ‘budget session’ held in Strasbourg (France) — Article 314 TFEU — Exercise of budgetary powers during an additional plenary part-session in Brussels (Belgium))

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2 October 2018

EU budget—Budgetary procedure—Declaration by the President of the Parliament of the final adoption of the budget—Time limit for adoption—None—Obligation of the President of the Parliament to wait until the next period of ordinary plenary part-session in Strasbourg to declare the budgetary procedure concluded—No such obligation

European Union—Seat of the institutions—Protocols concerning the seats of the institutions fixing Strasbourg as the seat of the Parliament—Scope—Obligation to hold the budget session there—Scope—Limits—Exercise of budgetary powers during an additional plenary part-session in Brussels to enable the Parliament to vote on a joint text on the draft annual budget of the EU within the applicable period—Lawfulness

European Union—Seat of the institutions—Protocols concerning the seats of the institutions fixing Strasbourg as the seat of the Parliament—Scope—Competence of the Member States—The Parliament’s power of internal organisation—Conditions of exercise—Reciprocal obligation to have due regard to the respective competences

An action brought against a legislative resolution of the European Parliament approving the joint text on the draft annual budget of the EU at second reading on the basis of Article 314(6) TFEU is admissible. In accordance with that provision, each institution is to exercise the powers conferred upon it in budgetary matters in compliance with the Treaties. If it were not possible to refer the various acts adopted by the budgetary authority under that article for review by the Court, the institutions of which that authority is composed could encroach upon the powers of the Member States or of the other institutions or exceed the limits which have been set to their own powers. (see para. 16)

The words ‘budget session’ in point (a) of the sole article of the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, encompass not only the ordinary plenary part-session during which the draft budget is considered by the Parliament at first reading, but also the second reading, under Article 314(6) TFEU, which guarantees a public debate and vote, in a plenary sitting, on the joint text on the draft annual budget adopted in the conciliation procedure. The exercise by the Parliament of its budgetary powers in plenary sitting is of particular importance for the transparency and democratic legitimacy of actions of the European Union based on its annual budget. Such transparency and legitimacy cannot be secured solely by the first reading of the draft budget in the budgetary procedure laid down in Article 314 TFEU where the Parliament, pursuant to Article 314(4)(c) TFEU, adopts amendments to that draft. In that regard, the exercise by the Parliament of its budgetary powers constitutes a fundamental event in the democratic life of the European Union and requires, inter alia, a public debate in plenary sitting enabling the citizens of the European Union to acquaint themselves with the various political orientations expressed and, as a result, to form a political opinion on the European Union’s actions. Furthermore, the transparency afforded by a parliamentary debate in a plenary sitting is likely to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the budgetary procedure in the eyes of citizens of the European Union and the credibility of the latter’s actions. The conciliation procedure provided for in paragraphs 4(c) and 5 of Article 314 TFEU may result in significant amendments to the draft budget that have neither been examined at the Parliament’s first reading nor been publicly debated within the Conciliation Committee. Sittings of that committee are not public and involve the participation of 28 Members of the Parliament, reflecting the majority relationships within the Parliament, whilst not fully representing the political interests of all the Members of the Parliament. (see paras 34-37)

If, within the 14-day period laid down in Article 314(6) TFEU, there has been no debate and vote in the Parliament on the joint text on the draft annual budget, the joint text may be adopted by the Council alone, under the conditions laid down in paragraph 7(a) of that article. It is of particular importance for the transparency and democratic legitimacy of action taken by the European Union, which are given expression through the procedure for adopting the annual budget, that the Parliament should exercise its powers under Article 314(6) TFEU and take a decision in plenary sitting on that joint text. The Parliament is therefore required to act in this area with all the attention, rigour and commitment which such a responsibility demands, which presupposes that the parliamentary debate and vote be based on a text that has been made available to the Members in good time and been translated into all the official EU languages. The European Union is committed to multilingualism, the importance of which is stated in the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU. (see paras 40, 41)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 43)

The Parliament is obliged to exercise its budgetary powers in an ordinary plenary part-session in Strasbourg, although that obligation, arising under point (a) of the sole article of the Protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, does not preclude the annual budget from being debated and voted on during an additional plenary part-session in Brussels, if that is called for by essential requirements relating to the proper conduct of the budgetary procedure that is laid down in Article 314 TFEU. If that procedure were conducted in such a way as to give absolute precedence to observance of point (a) of the sole article of the protocol to the detriment of Parliament’s full participation in the budgetary procedure, that would be incompatible with the need to reconcile the obligations arising under those provisions. When the Parliament undertakes such reconciliation, it has a discretion deriving from the essential requirements relating to the proper conduct of the budgetary procedure. Accordingly, where the draft annual budget of the EU is the subject of a conciliation procedure between the Parliament and the Council, the Parliament does not make an error of assessment by including the debate and vote on the joint text on the draft annual budget adopted in that procedure on the agenda for the additional plenary part-session in Brussels and by approving that joint text by legislative resolution in that same plenary part-session. In that regard, it cannot properly be maintained that the Parliament could have taken a decision on the joint text on the annual budget during the ordinary plenary part-session in Strasbourg that began four days after the Council forwarded that joint text to the Parliament. The fact that the Parliament uses the entirety of the period laid down in Article 314(6) TFEU cannot call in question the lawfulness of the above-mentioned agenda or of the legislative resolution, from the perspective of the Protocol concerning the seats of the institutions. The Parliament is entitled fully to utilise the periods afforded it by Article 314 TFEU. In addition, internal discussions within the various political groups and the Committee on Budgets take considerable time: that time is particularly important for preparing for the debate and vote on the budget in plenary session and, in particular, for securing a majority. (see paras 44, 45, 56, 61)