EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

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

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0678

62013TN0678

December 13, 2013
With Google you find a lot.
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

22.3.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/20

(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.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia