French Republic v European Parliament.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Celex Number | 62017CJ0073 |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2018:787 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Date | 02 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | C-73/17 |
| Procedure Type | Recurso de anulación |
Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
2 October 2018 (*)
(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))
In Case C‑73/17,
ACTION for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, brought on 9 February 2017,
French Republic, represented by F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents,
applicant,
supported by:
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, represented by D. Holderer and C. Schiltz, acting as Agents,
intervener,
v
European Parliament, represented by R. Crowe and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents,
defendant,
THE COURT (Grand Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta, M. Ilešič, T. von Danwitz (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chamber, E. Juhász, D. Šváby, A. Prechal, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos and M. Vilaras, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Wathelet,
Registrar: V. Giacobbo-Peyronnel, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 May 2018,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 June 2018,
gives the following
Judgment
1 By its application, the French Republic seeks the annulment of four acts of the European Parliament relating to the adoption of the annual budget of the European Union (EU) for the financial year 2017 (together ‘the contested acts’), namely:
– the agenda for the plenary sitting of Parliament of 30 November 2016 (Document P8_0J (2016) 11-30), in so far as it includes the debates on the joint text on the draft annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017;
– the agenda for the plenary sitting of the Parliament of 1 December 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)12-01), in so far as it includes a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text;
– the Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 (document T8‑0475/2016, P8_TA-PROV (2016)0475) on that joint text;
– the act of 1 December 2016 by which the President of the Parliament declared that the annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted.
Legal context
2 On 12 December 1992, the governments of the Member States adopted, on the basis of Article 216 of the EEC Treaty, Article 77 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 189 of the EAEC Treaty, a decision taken by common agreement on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the European Communities (OJ 1992 C 341, p. 1; ‘the Edinburgh Decision’).
3 At the intergovernmental conference which led to the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam, it was decided to append the Edinburgh Decision to the EU, EC, ECSC and EAEC Treaties as a Protocol.
4 Currently, 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 (‘the Protocol concerning the seats of the institutions’) provides, in identical terms to those of Article 1(a) of the Edinburgh Decision:
‘The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The Committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.’
5 Article 314 TFEU provides inter alia:
‘The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall establish the Union’s annual budget in accordance with the following provisions.
...
3. The Council shall adopt its position on the draft budget and forward it to the European Parliament not later than 1 October of the year preceding that in which the budget is to be implemented. ...
4. If, within forty-two days of such communication, the European Parliament:
...
(c) adopts amendments by a majority of its component members, the amended draft shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission. The President of the European Parliament, in agreement with the President of the Council, shall immediately convene a meeting of the Conciliation Committee. ...
5. The Conciliation Committee, which shall be composed of the members of the Council or their representatives and an equal number of members representing the European Parliament, shall have the task of reaching agreement on a joint text, by a qualified majority of the members of the Council or their representatives and by a majority of the representatives of the European Parliament within twenty-one days of its being convened, on the basis of the positions of the European Parliament and the Council.
...
6. If, within the twenty-one days referred to in paragraph 5, the Conciliation Committee agrees on a joint text, the European Parliament and the Council shall each have a period of fourteen days from the date of that agreement in which to approve the joint text.
7. If, within the period of fourteen days referred to in paragraph 6:
(a) the European Parliament and the Council both approve the joint text or fail to take a decision, or if one of these institutions approves the joint text while the other one fails to take a decision, the budget shall be deemed to be definitively adopted in accordance with the joint text; or
(b) the European Parliament, acting by a majority of its component members, and the Council both reject the joint text, or if one of these institutions rejects the joint text while the other one fails to take a decision, a new draft budget shall be submitted by the Commission; or
...
(d) the European Parliament approves the joint text whilst the Council rejects it, the European Parliament may, within fourteen days from the date of the rejection by the Council and acting by a majority of its component members and three-fifths of the votes cast, decide to confirm all or some of the amendments referred to in paragraph 4(c). Where a European Parliament amendment is not confirmed, the position agreed in the Conciliation Committee on the budget heading which is the subject of the amendment shall be retained. The budget shall be deemed to be definitively adopted on this basis.
...
9. When the procedure provided for in this Article has been completed, the President of the European Parliament shall declare that the budget has been definitively adopted.
10. Each institution shall exercise the powers conferred upon it under this Article in compliance with the Treaties and the acts adopted thereunder, with particular regard to the Union’s own resources and the balance between revenue and expenditure.’
6 The Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, in the version applicable to the dispute (‘the EP Rules of Procedure’), provide, in Rule 156, entitled ‘Time limits’:
‘Except in the cases of urgency referred to in Rules 135 and 154, a debate and vote shall not be opened on a text unless it has been distributed at least 24 hours earlier.’
7 Under Rule 158(1) of the EP Rules of Procedure, ‘all documents of Parliament shall be drawn up in the official languages’.
Background to the dispute
8 On 20 May 2015, the Parliament adopted the calendar of plenary part-sessions for 2016, providing, inter alia, for ordinary plenary part-sessions to be held in Strasbourg (France) from 24 to 27 October 2016, from 21 to 24 November 2016 and from 12 to 15 December 2016 and for an additional plenary part-session to be held on 30 November and 1 December 2016 in Brussels (Belgium).
9 On 18 July 2016, the Commission published a draft annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017. On 14 September 2016, the Council forwarded to the Parliament its position on that draft. After a vote in the Committee on Budgets and debates during the ordinary plenary part-session held in Strasbourg from 24 to 27 October 2016, the Parliament adopted, on 26 October 2016, a legislative resolution containing amendments to that draft. On 27 October 2016, the budget conciliation procedure between the Parliament and the Council began. On 17 November 2016, that procedure resulted in an agreement on a joint text on the annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017, which was forwarded to the Parliament and the Council on that day. The Commission services undertook a technical revision of the agreement in order to ‘transpose’ it into budgetary and legal terms. The joint text on the draft budget was thus finalised and provided to the Parliament in the course of the afternoon of 24 November 2016.
10 On 28 November 2016, the Council approved the joint text on the draft annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017. The Parliament did not place the debate and vote on that text on the agenda for the ordinary plenary part-session which was held in Strasbourg from 21 to 24 November 2016, but on the agenda for the additional plenary part-session in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December 2016. By the legislative resolution of 1 December 2016, the Parliament approved the joint text. On the same day, the President of the Parliament declared, in plenary sitting, that the annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted.
Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought
11 The French Republic claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested acts;
– maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the Parliament declared that the annual budget of the EU for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of judgment, and
– order the Parliament to pay...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Opinion of Advocate General Hogan delivered on 15 April 2021.
...point 37). 55 Voir, en ce sens, conclusions de l’avocat général Wathelet dans l’affaire France/Parlement (Exercice du pouvoir budgétaire) (C‑73/17, EU:C:2018:386, point 56 Voir, en ce sens, arrêts cités à la note de bas de page11 des présentes conclusions. 57 Voir, en ce sens, arrêts cités ......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Tanchev delivered on 24 September 2020.
...recurso, sino en el del fondo. Véase la sentencia de 2 de octubre de 2018, Francia/Parlamento (Ejercicio de las facultades presupuestarias) (C‑73/17, EU:C:2018:787), apartado 15; véanse asimismo las conclusiones de la Abogada General Sharpston presentadas en el asunto Consejo/Comisión (C‑66......
-
European Parliament v Council of the European Union.
...C‑237/11 and C‑238/11, EU:C:2012:796, paragraphs 36 to 42, and of 2 October 2018, France v Parliament (Exercise of budgetary powers), C‑73/17, EU:C:2018:787, paragraph 33), Article 2 of that decision cannot lead to an interpretation of Article 341 TFEU that would run counter to its clear 59......
-
Italian Republic v Council of the European Union.
...y C‑238/11, EU:C:2012:796, apartados 36 a 42, y de 2 de octubre de 2018, Francia/Parlamento (Ejercicio de la facultad presupuestaria), C‑73/17, EU:C:2018:787, apartado 33], el artículo 2 de dicha decisión no puede conducir a que se interprete el artículo 341 TFUE de una forma contraria a su......
-
Case-law of the court of justice in 2018
...the Charter, in particular Article 19. IV. Institutional provisions In the judgment in France v Parliament (Exercise of budgetary powers) (C-73/17, EU:C:2018:787 ), delivered on 2 October 2018, the Grand Chamber of the Court held that the European Parliament may exercise some of its budgeta......
-
An EU budget of states and citizens
...with the European Parliament. Furthermore, since a political18C-73/17, French Republic v. EP (Exercise of budgetary powers), ECLI:EU:C:2018:787, para. 35.19Ibid., para. 38. Repeated in case C-92/18 French Republic v. EP (Exercise of budgetary powers II), EU:C:2020:506, para. 21.20See, for e......