- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-48/17: Action brought on 27 January 2017 — ADDE v Parliament
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0048
62017TN0048
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
13.3.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 78/40
(Case T-48/17)
(2017/C 078/55)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Defalque, lawyer)
Defendant: European Parliament
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the decision of the European Parliament of 21 November 2016 on the 2015 funding of the ADDE party declaring an amount of 500 615,55 euros as ineligible and requesting the reimbursement of the amount of 172 654,92 euros
—annul the decision of the European Parliament of 15 December 2016, inasmuch as it limits the pre-financing amount for the 2017 grant to 33 % of the maximum grant amount and makes the payment of the pre-financing amount conditional on the presentation of a first demand guarantee, and, as a consequence, article I.4.1 of the grant award decision FINS-2017-13 appended to this decision;
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action for annulment of the decision of 21 November 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.
2.Second plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment which give rise to a breach of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1)
3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment
In support of the action for annulment of the decision of 15 December 2016, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
1.First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of good administration and violation of the rights of the defence.
2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 134 of the EU financial regulation.
3.Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of proportionality and the principle of equal treatment.