4.2.2019

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/6

(Case C-92/18)

(2019/C 44/08)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, E. de Moustier and B. Fodda, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the agenda of the plenary session of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-29), in so far as it includes debates on the joint text on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018, the agenda of the session of Thursday 30 November 2017 (document P8_OJ (2017) 11-30), in so far as it includes a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget, the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document P8_TA (2017) 0458, P8_TA-PROV (2017) 0458 in its provisional version) and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted;

—maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2018 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;

—order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the French Government requests the annulment of four acts adopted by the European Parliament in the context of the exercise of its budgetary powers, during the additional plenary session which took place on 29 and 30 November in Brussels.

The first and second acts which the French Government seeks to have annulled are agendas of sessions of the European Parliament of Wednesday 29 and Thursday 30 November 2017, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2018 and a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text on the draft general budget.

The third contested act is the European Parliament legislative resolution of 30 November 2017 on the joint text on the draft general budget.

Lastly, the French Government requests annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament declared that the general budget for the financial year 2018 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the session of the European Parliament of Thursday 30 November 2017, it concerns the declaration of the President of the European Parliament followed by the latter’s signature of the general budget, which took place following the vote on the legislative resolution on the joint text on the draft general budget.

By its single plea in law, the French Government claims that the four contested acts should be annulled on the ground that they infringe Protocol No 6 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol No 3 annexed to the ECSC Treaty, which relate to the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union.

It follows both from the protocols on the seat of the institutions and the case-law of the Court that the European Parliament may not exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by Article 314 TFEU during additional plenary sessions held in Brussels, but must exercise them during ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.

However, in so far as the lawfulness of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament is disputed, not as a result of its purpose or contents, but solely because that act should have been adopted during an ordinary plenary session in Strasbourg, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service together with important considerations of legal certainty justify, in the view of the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.