Case T-18/07: Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v European Parliament
Date: 2007-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European election, Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), elective office, preferential voting

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/21

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the contested
decision infringes the Commission's authorising decision K(95)
1739 of 27 July 1995.

it submits that there is an infringement of Article
Moreover,
24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1), as the conditions for reduc-
tion are not satisfied. It also submits that the departures from
the indicative financing plan do not constitute a significant
change of the program.

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant's standard costs.

Grounds and principal arguments

The applicant stood for election to the European Parliament in
the European Parliament elections which were held on 13 June
2004 in Austria.

Even if there were a significant change of the program, the
applicant submits that the Commission previously agreed to a
flexible application of the indicative financing plans by virtue of
its Guidelines for the financial closure of operational measures
(1994-1999) from the Structural Funds (SEK (1999) 1316).

By the present action, he challenges the decision of the Euro-
pean Parliament of 28 April 2005, according to which the
applicant's challenge to the validity of the mandate of one of its
Members is to be regarded as unfounded.

On the assumption that the conditions for a reduction are satis-
fied, the applicant complains that the defendant failed to use its
discretion in relation to the specific program. The Commission
should have considered whether a reduction of the ERDF assis-
tance was proportionate.

In support of his claim, the applicant submits in particular that
the Austrian rules on allocation of preferential votes are incom-
patible with Article 1 of the Act concerning the election of the
representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (1)
and are thus contrary to Community law.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying
down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds
between themselves and with the operations of the European Invest-
ment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374,
31.12.1988, p. 1).

(1) OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 5.

Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran
Luxembourg v Commission

Action brought on 29 January 2007 — Kronberger v Euro-
pean Parliament

(Case T-18/07)

(2007/C 69/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case T-19/07)

(2007/C 69/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg (represented by:
J.-P. Spitzer and E. de Boissieu, lawyers)

Applicant: Hans Kronberger (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: W.
L. Weh, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Parliament to declare the mandate

of one of its Members valid, by reason of its nullity;

— order the immediate cessation of the acts of infringement
and of disclosure by the European Community, acting
through the Commission;