THE SHARE OF THOSE APPROPRIATIONS TO BE PAID TO THE POLITICAL GROUPS IN THE ASSEMBLY ELECTED IN 1979 AND TO THE NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS OF THAT ASSEMBLY ( 69% ) AND THE SHARE OF THE APPROPRIATIONS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG ALL THE POLITICAL GROUPINGS , WHETHER OR NOT REPRESENTED IN THE ASSEMBLY ELECTED IN 1979 , WHICH TOOK PART IN THE 1984 ELECTIONS ( 31% ); FINALLY , IT DIVIDED THE 69% BETWEEN THE POLITICAL GROUPS AND THE NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS . THE 1983 RULES MERELY CONFIRMED THE 1982 DECISION AND COMPLETED IT BY SETTING OUT THE FORMULA FOR THE DIVISION OF THE 31% RESERVE FUND . THEY MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION .
34 THE 1982 DECISION CONCERNS ALL THE POLITICAL GROUPINGS , EVEN THOUGH THE TREATMENT THEY RECEIVE DIFFERS ACCORDING TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE REPRESENTED IN THE ASSEMBLY ELECTED IN 1979 .
35 THIS ACTION CONCERNS A SITUATION WHICH HAS NEVER BEFORE COME BEFORE THE COURT . BECAUSE THEY HAD REPRESENTATIVES IN THE INSTITUTION , CERTAIN POLITICAL GROUPINGS TOOK PART IN THE ADOPTION OF A DECISION WHICH DEALS BOTH WITH THEIR OWN TREATMENT AND WITH THAT ACCORDED TO RIVAL GROUPINGS WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTED . IN VIEW OF THIS , AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CONTESTED MEASURE CONCERNS THE ALLOCATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREPARING FOR ELECTIONS AND IT IS ALLEGED THAT THOSE FUNDS WERE ALLOCATED UNEQUALLY , IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THAT ONLY GROUPINGS WHICH WERE REPRESENTED AND WHICH WERE THEREFORE IDENTIFIABLE AT THE DATE OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE ARE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY IT .
36 SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WOULD GIVE RISE TO INEQUALITY IN THE PROTECTION AFFORDED BY THE COURT TO THE VARIOUS GROUPINGS COMPETING IN THE SAME ELECTIONS . GROUPINGS NOT REPRESENTED COULD NOT PREVENT THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS AT ISSUE BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO PLEAD THE ILLEGALITY OF THE BASIC DECISION EXCEPT IN SUPPORT OF AN ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS REFUSING TO REIMBURSE SUMS GREATER THAN THOSE PROVIDED FOR . IT WOULD THEREFORE BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BRING AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT BEFORE THE COURT PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS OR TO OBTAIN AN ORDER FROM THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 185 OF THE TREATY SUSPENDING APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED BASIC DECISION .
37 CONSEQUENTLY , IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION , WHICH WAS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME WHEN THE 1982 DECISION WAS ADOPTED AND WHICH WAS ABLE TO PRESENT CANDIDATES AT THE 1984 ELECTIONS , IS INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY THE CONTESTED MEASURES .
38 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS , IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMISSIBLE .
SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE
39 IN ITS FIRST THREE SUBMISSIONS , THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION DESCRIBES THE SCHEME ESTABLISHED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AS A SCHEME FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES .
40 IN ITS FIRST SUBMISSION , THE APPLICANT ASSOCIATION