Action brought on 24 December 2023 – ID Parti v Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations

(Case T-1189/23)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Identité et Démocratie Parti (ID Parti) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

declare Article 6 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 unlawful, and

accordingly, annul the decision dated 26 July 2021 selecting the Director of the Authority;

annul the decision of 25 October 2023, notified on 26 October 2023, of the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations imposing a financial sanction on Identité et Démocratie Parti, pursuant to Article 27(2)(a)(vi) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 55 000 as compensation for the harm caused;

order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Article 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 11 pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons. The decision is vitiated by contradictory reasoning, in that the Authority considers that information should have been communicated to it while at the same time noting that such information was in fact provided to it, which amounts to a failure to state reasons.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard. The procedure is not adversarial in nature since the applicant was not able to submit its oral observations at a formal hearing.

Third plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of Article 6 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations as regards the procedure for appointing the Director of the Authority, and alleging breach of the principle of impartiality and of the principle of good administration.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of the investigation procedure. The opening of the investigation procedure, which led to the adoption of the contested decision, took place without any objective and valid reason and does not comply with the provisions of Article 4 of the abovementioned regulation, since the Authority in fact had the information which it considered to be lacking.

Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the separation of powers. The investigating authority (the defendant) also acted as an adjudicating authority, whereas the separation of those functions is a guarantee provided by Article 6 of the ECHR and by Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Sixth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and unequal treatment. The Authority’s decision was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, since the information sought by the Authority was in fact provided to it, and even assuming that the information provided were not sufficient, neither the Authority nor third parties suffered any harm whatsoever that would justify a sanction.

Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The contested decision, by virtue of its severity, is discriminatory since the other European political parties which, for their part, commit proven infringements of the requirements provided for under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 are subject to much less stringent scrutiny by the Authority.

Eighth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. In adopting the contested decision, the Authority pursued a purpose other than that for which the powers were conferred on it under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014, in the present case, by pursuing a discriminatory purpose.

Ninth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality. The decision necessarily fails to have regard to the principle of proportionality since the sanction imposed is completely uncorrelated to the alleged infringement of the rules under Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014.

Tenth plea in law, alleging infringement of freedom of expression and freedom of association. The contested decision infringes freedom of expression as protected under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and freedom of association as protected under Article 12 of that charter, in so far as it alleges that the applicant provided the public with information which that decision considers to be misleading, whereas such a matter falls exclusively within the remit of the applicant’s internal organisation.

Eleventh plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties. Article 27(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 provides for no sanction in respect of any act which may have had the consequence of misleading the public, with the result that the Authority failed to have regard to the principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties by imposing such a sanction on the applicant.

____________