23.1.2017

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/55

(Case T-829/16)

(2017/C 022/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Varaut, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Decision D106185 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 12 September 2016, notified by Mr [X] on 26 September 2016, declaring ineligible the expenditure resulting from the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign;

—order the Bureau of the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.First plea, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration resulting from the fact that neither the material in the case file nor the objections of the Mouvement pour une Europe des nations et des libertés (‘MENL’) were brought to the attention of the Bureau of the European Parliament.

2.Second plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the concept of ‘indirect funding’ of national parties by European parties is an imprecise concept that is contrary to all legal certainty.

3.Third plea, alleging that the logo featuring on the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign (‘the logo at issue’) conveys on national territories an exclusively European campaign, contrary to the view taken by the defendant in adopting the decision which the present action seeks to have annulled. In support of this plea, the applicant primarily puts forward three arguments, namely:

—the campaign was orchestrated by MENL alone, without agreement or involvement of the national parties;

—the campaign and the poster concern a problem of European scope which is that of the Schengen agreements;

—the logo at issue is therefore not the logo of the national parties but the logo of the delegations of those parties within the European Parliament.

4.Fourth plea, alleging that, according to the applicant, the logo at issue is of much smaller size than MENL’s logo. However, the case-law and the texts dealing with the question provide for sanctions only in respect of national logos of a size greater than or equal to that of the European logos.