Case T-54/17: Action brought on 31 January 2017 — CLF v Parliament
Date: 2017-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European party, equal treatment, freedom of association, freedom of expression, party financing, restriction on competition








C_2017078EN.01004101.xml










13.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/41





Action brought on 31 January 2017 — CLF v Parliament
(Case T-54/17)
(2017/C 078/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Coalition for Life and Family (CLF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (reference: FINS-2017-16) concerning the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the specified maximum amount and ordering the lodging of a guarantee;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law based on infringement of the Treaties and of the rules of law relating to their implementation.






—


The applicant claims that the distinction drawn by the defendant between political parties at European level which have only recently been formed and those which have already been in existence for a significant period of time constitutes an infringement of the general principle of equality in EU law.










—


Furthermore, under Article 134(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Article 206(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (2) no guarantee at all may be required in the case of low-value grants.










—


In addition, the defendant has no interest in obtaining a guarantee since the applicant is represented by members of national parliaments in a sufficient number of Member States to dispel any fear that it might lose its position as a European political party.










—


Moreover, the basis on which the defendant harbours doubts as to whether the applicant would respect the basic values of the European Union has not been indicated in any way whatsoever.










—


Finally, the measures are disproportionate, since the applicant is not in a position to lodge a guarantee and its economic survival is threatened by the withdrawal of financial support, which involves a distortion in competition for political ideas. This constitutes a serious breach of the applicant’s fundamental rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association (Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).