Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013TN0678

Case T-678/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 20–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/20

Action brought on 13 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

(Case T-678/13)

2014/C 85/35

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul Decision No 110655 of 14 October 2013, which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements should reimburse EUR 45 476,00, having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.

First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence on the part of the author of the act, since the signatory of that act did not have any authority to adopt, sign and notify the contested decision.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the Parliament did not give the applicant the opportunity to state its views on the discrepancies noted.

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule of law, in so far as:

—

contributions in kind are a lawful method of financing;

—

the applicant has been discriminated against in terms of its budget as against other European political parties;

—

the right of an individual to be heard prior to the enactment of a measure adversely affecting him has not been observed.

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, since the Parliament used financial constraints in order to restrict the means of action of a political party whose ideals are not shared by some of the Parliament’s members.
Top