Case T‑48/17
Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (ADDE)
v
European Parliament
Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition), 7 November 2019
(Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant for 2015 — Decision awarding a grant for 2017 and providing for pre-financing at the rate of 33% of the maximum grant amount and the obligation to provide a bank guarantee — Obligation of impartiality — Rights of the defence — Financial Regulation — Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation — Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
1. European Parliament — Funding of European political parties — Decision declaring certain expenditure of a political party ineligible for the purposes of a grant — Observance of the rights of the defence — Party’s right to be heard — Scope — No right to a formal hearing
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Art. 224(3) and (5))
(see paragraphs 35, 88)
2. Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to good administration — Requirement of impartiality — Meaning — Discretion of the Parliament — Judicial review — Limits
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2004/2003, Arts 7 and 8)
(see paragraphs 41-45)
3. Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to good administration — Requirement of impartiality — Meaning — Categorical and unequivocal public remarks by a Member of the European Parliament on an ongoing case — Not included
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))
(see paragraphs 55-61)
4. European Parliament — Funding of European political parties — Prohibition on the indirect funding of a national political party — Conditions — Existence of an indirect financial advantage in favour of a national political party — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2004/2003, Art. 7)
(see paragraph 71)
5. European Parliament — Funding of European political parties — Prohibition of the financing of referenda campaigns — Conditions — Activity linked with a referendum campaign — Criteria for assessment
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2004/2003, Art. 8)
(see paragraph 73)
6. EU law — Principles — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Scope — Adoption of an individual decision on the basis of factors notified to the person concerned or known by the latter — Infringement — None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2))
(see paragraphs 89-91, 97)
7. European Parliament — Funding of European political parties — Award of pre-financing grants — Requirement for a financial guarantee and limitation of the amount of the pre-financing — Margin of discretion — Scope — Breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment — None
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 134(1); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 206(1))
(see paragraphs 107, 108, 113, 120, 121, 124, 125, 128)
Résumé
In the judgment in ADDE v Parliament (T‑48/17), delivered on 7 November 2019 by a chamber sitting in extended composition, the Court upheld the application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 21 November 2016 which declared certain expenditure of the political party, Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe ASBL (‘the applicant’), ineligible for the purposes of a grant for the 2015 financial year. However, the Court rejected the application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 which made the award of a grant to the applicant for the 2017 financial year subject to certain conditions.
In December 2014, the Bureau of the Parliament adopted a decision in respect of the applicant awarding it a maximum grant of EUR 1 241 725 for the 2015 financial year. Checks were subsequently performed and an external audit report concluded that certain expenditure was ineligible for the 2015 financial year. In November 2016, the Parliament declared the sum of EUR 500 615.55 ineligible and requested the applicant to reimburse the sum of EUR 172 654.92.
In December 2016, the Bureau of the Parliament adopted a decision awarding a maximum grant of EUR 1 102 642.71 to the applicant for the 2017 financial year and providing that the pre-financing would be limited to 33% of the maximum amount of the grant, subject to the provision of a bank guarantee, in view of the fact that the applicant’s financial viability was called into question by the external auditors in the absence of own resources.
In an action for annulment of both the Parliament’s decisions of November and December 2016, the Court first of all pointed out that the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially by the institutions of the European Union is a general principle of EU law and that, in accordance with the case-law, the principle of good administration means inter alia the obligation on the competent institution to examine all the relevant particulars of the case concerned with care and impartiality before taking a decision. Moreover, the requirement of impartiality encompasses, on the one hand, subjective impartiality, in so far as no member of the institution concerned who is responsible for the matter may show bias or personal prejudice, and, on the other hand, objective impartiality, in so far as there must be sufficient guarantees to exclude any legitimate doubt as to bias on the part of the institution concerned.
The Court stated that, in the present case, one of the members of the Bureau of the Parliament responsible for monitoring files relating to the funding of European political parties made public statements which were categorical and unequivocal and, from the point of view of an external observer, allowed the inference that that member had prejudged the issue before the contested decision relating to the 2015 financial year was adopted. Given that the member in question had taken part in the meeting of the Bureau and had played an active role in the discussions which led to the adoption of the contested decision, the Court found that the appearances of impartiality were seriously compromised.
The Court pointed out that the Parliament must provide sufficient guarantees to rule out any doubt over the lack of bias of its members when taking administrative decisions, which means in particular that the members must abstain from making public statements relating to the proper or improper management of funds by political parties at European level when the files are being examined.
Next, the Court examined the issue of the ineligibility of certain expenditure relating to the funding of an opinion poll conducted in seven Member States in December 2015. The Court recalled, first, the prohibition of the funding of political parties at European level from the general budget of the European Union being used for the direct or indirect funding of other political parties, and in particular national parties or candidates (1) and, second, the prohibition of those funds being used for the financing of referenda campaigns (2).
In the present case, the Court made clear that the opinion poll at issue was carried out in seven different Member States (Belgium, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom) on a sample of around 1 000 people in each State, that the questions were the same and that they concerned, inter alia, the EU membership of those Member States, how the participants would vote in an eventual EU membership referendum and reforming the conditions for EU membership. Next, the Court found that only the part of the opinion poll relating to the United Kingdom was concerned with the prohibition of the financing of referenda campaigns, given that the legislation relating to the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom had been finally approved at the time of the poll. However, since that does not apply to the six other Member States concerned by the opinion poll, the Court took the view that the declaration that all of the expenditure for the opinion poll was ineligible was not justified. In view of the requirements for impartiality and of the features of the opinion poll at issue, the Court annulled the decision of the Parliament of 21 November 2016 relating to the 2015 financial year.
With regard to the application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 concerning the award of a grant to the applicant for 2017, that was rejected by the Court which considered that the pleas relied on, alleging, first, infringement of the principle of good administration and the rights of the defence, second, infringement of Article 134 of the Financial Regulation (3) and Article 206 of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation (4) (relating to pre-financing guarantees for grants) and, third, infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, were unfounded.