Action brought on 9 February 2017 — French Republic v European Parliament

(Case C-73/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

annul the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)11-30), in so far as it makes provision for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget agreed by the Conciliation Committee; the agenda of the meeting of Thursday 1 December 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)12-01), in so far as it makes provision for a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget; the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document TS-0475/2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0475 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 concluded that the general budget had been definitively adopted;

maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been 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 the judgement;

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, at the additional plenary session which took place on 30 November and 1 December 2016 in Brussels.

The first and second acts annulment of which is sought by the French Government are agendas of meetings of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016and Thursday 1 December 2016, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2017 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 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget.

Finally, the French Government requests the annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Thursday 1 December 2016, 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 considers that the four contested acts must 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, according to the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.

____________