Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

1 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A DECISION - CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING SUCH SUSPENSION
( EEC TREATY , ART . 185 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 83 ( 2 ))
2 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSIBILITY OF MAIN APPLICATION - IRRELEVANT - LIMITS
( EEC TREATY , ARTS 185 AND 186 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 83 ( 1 ))

1 . THE OPERATION OF A MEASURE MAY BE SUSPENDED ONLY IF THERE ARE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR SUCH SUSPENSION . THERE MUST ALSO BE AN URGENT NEED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE MEASURE , IN THE SENSE THAT IT MUST BE NECESSARY FOR THE SUSPENSION TO BE GRANTED AND TO TAKE EFFECT BEFORE JUDGMENT IS GIVEN ON THE MAIN APPLICATION IN ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PARTY SEEKING THE SUSPENSION .

2 . IT IS TRUE THAT IN PRINCIPLE THE ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE EXAMINED IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES , BUT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SO AS NOT TO PREJUDGE THAT APPLICATION ; HOWEVER , WHERE IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION FROM WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS DERIVED IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE , IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS FOR THE PRIMA FACIE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION CANNOT BE COMPLETELY RULED OUT .

IN CASE 221/86 R
GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT , A POLITICAL GROUP WITHIN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , AND
NATIONAL FRONT PARTY , A NON-PROFIT MAKING ASSOCIATION , WHOSE HEADQUARTERS ARE IN PARIS ,
REPRESENTED BY W . DE SAINT JUST , OF THE PARIS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF E . PRETA , DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT , BP 1601 , PLATEAU DU KIRCHBERG ,
APPLICANTS ,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , REPRESENTED BY F . PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA , JURISCONSULT , ACTING AS AGENT , ASSISTED BY M . WAELBROEK , OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE SEAT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , PLATEAU DU KIRCHBERG , BP 1601 ,
DEFENDANT ,

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ENLARGED BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DATED 10 JULY 1986 ON THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1986 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ' INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS ' IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ,

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 13 AUGUST 1986 , THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT AND THE NATIONAL FRONT PARTY BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE DECISION OF THE ENLARGED BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DATED 10 JULY 1986 ON THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IS VOID .

2 ITEM 3708 APPEARS IN THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1986 IN THE SECTION CONCERNING THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AT CHAPTER 37 IN TITLE 3 , WHICH COVERS EXPENDITURE RESULTING FROM SPECIAL FUNCTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE INSTITUTION ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1985 , L 358 , P . 148 ). ITEM 3708 WAS INITIALLY HEADED ' CONTRIBUTION TO THE COSTS OF PREPARATIONS FOR THE NEXT EUROPEAN ELECTIONS . ' HOWEVER , WHEN THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WAS FINALLY ADOPTED THAT HEADING WAS AMENDED TO READ ' EUROPEAN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN ' ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1986 , L 214 , P . 81 ). ITEM 3708 PROVIDES FOR AN APPROPRIATION OF ECU 7 800 000 .
3 ACCORDING TO THE REMARKS CONCERNING THE ITEM , THAT APPROPRIATION IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SEPARATE AMOUNTS . A FIRST AMOUNT , ECU 4 300 000 , IS INTENDED TO ENABLE THE POLITICAL GROUPS TO FINANCE INFORMATION ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT . THE SECOND AMOUNT , ECU 3 500 000 , IS INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE FIRST DIRECT ELECTIONS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL .

4 ACCORDING TO THE REMARKS , THAT SECOND AMOUNT IS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING ITS UTILIZATION AS THOSE MADE FOR THE AMOUNTS ENTERED AGAINST ITEM 3708 FOR THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE 1984 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS . IN ADDITION IT IS STATED THAT THE APPROPRIATION MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD TO 1987 IF EITHER OF THE TWO COUNTRIES CONCERNED DOES NOT HOLD EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN 1986 , BUT WILL BE CANCELLED IF THOSE ELECTIONS ARE NOT HELD IN 1987 .
5 ON 26 JUNE 1986 THE ENLARGED BUREAU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTED RULES LAYING DOWN THE PROCEDURES FOR UTILIZING THE APPROPRIATIONS SET ASIDE FOR INFORMATION ACTIVITIES IN ITEM 3708 OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . ON THE SAME DAY IT ADOPTED FURTHER RULES ON THE SAME SUBJECT BUT DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH INFORMATION ACTIVITIES FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL . ARTICLE 1 OF THOSE RULES , WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PUBLISHED , PROVIDES THAT ' THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN 1986 FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL IN ITEM 3708 OF THE BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SHALL BE USED TO FINANCE THE INFORMATION ACTIVITIES OF THE POLITICAL GROUPS AND THE NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS RELATING TO THEIR PARLIAMENTARY ACTIVITIES ' . ARTICLE 2 STATES THAT ' THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS BETWEEN THE POLITICAL GROUPS AND THE NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF A DECISION OF THE ENLARGED BUREAU BASED ON A SCALE PROPOSED BY THE CHAIRMEN OF THE POLITICAL GROUPS ' .

6 AS FAR AS THE UTILIZATION OF THOSE FUNDS IS CONCERNED , THE FOLLOWING RULES APPLY . THE INFORMATION ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED ABOVE MAY NOT BE CONDUCTED DURING THE ELECTORAL PERIOD LAID DOWN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY CONCERNED . THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE CONNECTED WITH THOSE ACTIVITIES ( INTER ALIA THE REMUNERATION OF PART-TIME ASSISTANTS , THE COSTS OF HIRING PREMISES AND HEAVY OFFICE EQUIPMENT , AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COSTS ) MUST NOT AMOUNT TO MORE THAN 25% OF THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION MADE AVAILABLE . THE USE OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR OFFICE FURNITURE IS PROHIBITED . THE POLITICAL GROUPS MUST DEPOSIT THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM IN SPECIALLY OPENED BANK ACCOUNTS .

7 THE CHAIRMEN OF THE POLITICAL GROUPS ARE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS ARE USED FOR PURPOSES COMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES . NOT LATER THAN 31 MARCH OF THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ELECTIONS , EACH POLITICAL GROUP AND THE NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS MUST SUBMIT A REPORT DEMONSTRATING THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS WERE USED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES . ALL THOSE REPORTS ARE TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , WHO MUST FORWARD THEM TO THE COMMITTEE ON BUDGETARY CONTROL . THAT COMMITTEE IS TO DRAW UP , ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORTS FORWARDED TO IT , AN OVERALL REPORT VERIFYING THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS WERE USED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RULES . THAT OVERALL REPORT IS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE BUREAU OF THE PARLIAMENT . FINALLY THE COURT OF AUDITORS IS TO BE INVITED TO EXAMINE THE REPORT PURSUANT TO THE FOURTH SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 206A ( 4 ) OF THE EEC TREATY .

8 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 2 OF THE RULES OF 26 JUNE 1986 CONCERNING INFORMATION ACTIVITIES FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL , ON 10 JULY 1986 THE ENLARGED BUREAU ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE THE FORMULA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 IN CONNECTION WITH THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL . ON 9 JULY 1986 IT HAD ALREADY TAKEN A DECISION ADOPTING A FORMULA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 UNDER THE GENERAL PROGRAMME , IN OTHER WORDS THOSE INTENDED TO FINANCE THE INFORMATION ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL GROUPS THROUGHOUT THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT .

9 THAT DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 , WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED , DIVIDES UP THE APPROPRIATION OF ECU 3 500 000 ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 FOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL AS FOLLOWS :
( I ) THE APPROPRIATION IS DIVIDED INTO TWO AMOUNTS ; THE FIRST , REPRESENTING 8% OF THE TOTAL APPROPRIATION , IS REFERRED TO AS THE ' FLAT-RATE AMOUNT ' , WHILST THE SECOND , WHICH REPRESENTS 92% , IS REFERRED TO AS THE ' PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT ' .

( II)THE 8% FLAT RATE AMOUNT IS ALLOCATED EXCLUSIVELY AMONG THE POLITICAL GROUPS WHICH ARE ALREADY REPRESENTED IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT . NON-ATTACHED MEMBERS ARE THEREFORE EXCLUDED FROM THAT DISTRIBUTION . THAT 8% IS ALLOCATED ON THE BASIS OF A PERCENTAGE WHICH , AT FIRST SIGHT , APPEARS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT , TO A CERTAIN EXTENT , THE RESPECTIVE SIZES OF THE POLITICAL GROUPS .

( III)THE 92% PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT IS ALLOCATED AMONG THE POLITICAL GROUPS WHICH ARE ALREADY REPRESENTED IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND NON- ATTACHED MEMBERS . THE BASIS USED FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THAT AMOUNT IS THE NUMBER OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE MEMBERS IN EACH POLITICAL GROUP OF THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT .

THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THAT ALLOCATION IS BASED ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE CONTAINED IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED DECISION OF 9 JULY 1986 , EXCEPT THAT IN THE LATTER DECISION THE BASIS USED FOR THE ALLOCATION OF THE PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT , REPRESENTING 92% OF THE APPROPRIATION ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ' GENERAL PROGRAMME ' , IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN EACH GROUP IN THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT . IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE APPLICANTS DID NOT BRING AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE DECISION OF 9 JULY 1986 WAS VOID AND THAT THESE INTERIM PROCEEDINGS DO NOT CONCERN THAT DECISION .

10 THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES CONTAINED IN THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 RESULTED IN THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT BEING ALLOCATED A FLAT-RATE AMOUNT OF ECU 17 500 . HOWEVER , THEY WERE COMPLETELY EXCLUDED FROM THE PROPORTIONATE DISTRIBUTION OF THE REMAINING FUNDS SINCE THOSE FUNDS WERE RESTRICTED TO GROUPS WHICH ALREADY INCLUDED SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE MEMBERS . THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT HAS NO SPANISH OR PORTUGUESE MEMBERS .

11 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 11 SEPTEMBER 1986 , THE APPLICANTS BROUGHT AN ACTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 36 OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC AND ARTICLE 83 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ENLARGED BUREAU OF 10 JULY 1986 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE COURT HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS .

12 BY TELEX MESSAGES DATED 12 AND 17 SEPTEMBER 1986 THE COURT PUT QUESTIONS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND REQUESTED IT TO SUBMIT ITS REPLIES IN WRITING BEFORE 16 AND 17 SEPTEMBER 1986 RESPECTIVELY .

13 BY AN ORDER OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1986 MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 84 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE , IN THE INTERESTS OF THE PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND AS A PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE , ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE ENLARGED BUREAU TAKEN ON 10 JULY 1986 UNTIL AN ORDER HAD BEEN MADE TERMINATING THE INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS IN CASE 221/86 . HE ALSO REQUESTED THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO NOTIFY HIM NOT LATER THAN MONDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 1986 OF THE STEPS WHICH IT HAD TAKEN IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE INJUNCTIONS ADDRESSED TO IT WHICH WERE INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE SUSPENDING THE DECISION WAS EFFECTIVE .

14 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT SUBMITTED ITS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS ON 26 SEPTEMBER 1986 . THE PARTIES PRESENTED ORAL ARGUMENT ON 7 OCTOBER 1986 .
15 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 185 OF THE EEC TREATY ACTIONS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE DO NOT HAVE SUSPENSORY EFFECT . THE COURT OF JUSTICE MAY , HOWEVER , IF IT CONSIDERS THAT CIRCUMSTANCES SO REQUIRE , ORDER THAT APPLICATION OF THE CONTESTED ACT BE SUSPENDED .

16 ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STIPULATES , AS A CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF AN INTERIM MEASURE SUCH AS THAT REQUESTED , THAT THE APPLICATION MUST STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR .

17 BEFORE EXAMINING THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS TO SHOW THAT THEIR APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE MEASURE , IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER BRIEFLY THE PROBLEM RAISED BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION .

18 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONTENDS THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION , FROM WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS DERIVED , IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE . IN SUPPORT OF ITS VIEW , IT MAINTAINS THAT POLITICAL GROUPS ARE MERELY ORGANS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE CONTESTED DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 MAY BE REGARDED ONLY AS AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE SINCE THOSE POLITICAL GROUPS CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS THIRD PARTIES WHOM SUCH A DECISION MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT . IT SHOULD NOT THEREFORE BE POSSIBLE TO CHALLENGE THE DECISIONS OF A COLLEGIATE BODY SUCH AS THE ENLARGED BUREAU , IN WHICH THE APPLICANT WAS REPRESENTED AS A POLITICAL GROUP , BY MEANS OF AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT BROUGHT BY A MEMBER OF THAT BODY WHO HAS BEEN OUTVOTED . TO ALLOW SUCH AN ACTION WOULD BE TO RUN THE RISK OF PARALYZING THE WORK OF THE PARLIAMENT . THE PARLIAMENT CONCLUDES THAT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION IS SO MANIFEST THAT THERE IS NO CASE TO ANSWER .

19 IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY REPEATEDLY STRESSED THAT IN PRINCIPLE THE ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE EXAMINED IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES . IT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SO AS NOT TO PREJUDGE THAT APPLICATION ( SEE IN PARTICULAR CASE 75/72 R PERINCIOLO V COUNCIL ( 1972 ) ECR 1201 , CASE 186/80 R SUSS V COMMISSION ( 1980 ) ECR 3501 , CASE 351/85 R FABRIQUE DE FER DE CHARLEROI V COMMISSION ( 1986 ) ECR 1307 AND CASE 23/86 R UNITED KINGDOM V EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 1986 ) ECR 1085 ). HOWEVER , WHEN , AS IN THIS CASE , IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION FROM WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS DERIVED IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE , IT SEEMS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH GROUNDS FOR CONCLUDING PRIMA FACIE THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION CANNOT BE COMPLETELY RULED OUT . IN THAT RESPECT IT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER WHETHER A POLITICAL GROUP MAY BRING AN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT . THAT IS A QUESTION WHICH MUST BE DECIDED BY THE COURT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS . IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION WAS LODGED NOT ONLY BY THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT BUT ALSO BY THE NATIONAL FRONT PARTY , WHICH APPEARS PRIMA FACIE TO QUALIFY AS A THIRD PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE DEFINITION LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 23 APRIL 1986 ( CASE 294/83 ECOLOGIST PARTY ' LES VERTS ' V EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ( 1986 ) ECR 1339 , HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE LES VERTS JUDGMENT ' ).

20 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE COURT ' S DECISION REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION , THAT FINDING IS SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE , PRIMA FACIE , THAT THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS ADMISSIBLE .

21 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURES APPLIED FOR , THE APPLICANTS REFER TO TWO SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MAIN APPLICATION . IN THE FIRST OF THOSE SUBMISSIONS THEY ARGUE THAT , EVEN THOUGH THE SYSTEM OF FINANCING INTRODUCED BY THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 IS DESCRIBED AS AN ' INFORMATION CAMPAIGN ' , IT CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM A SCHEME FOR THE FLAT-RATE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND THAT , CONSEQUENTLY , IT IS CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 7 ( 2 ) OF THE ACT OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1976 CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSEMBLY BY DIRECT UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE , SINCE IN THE LES VERTS JUDGMENT THE COURT HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW THE SETTING UP OF A SCHEME FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND THE INTRODUCTION OF DETAILED ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION REMAIN WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES .

22 IN THEIR SECOND SUBMISSION THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION INFRINGES THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF THE EQUALITY OF INDIVIDUALS BEFORE THE LAW AND CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWER INASMUCH AS IT FACILITATES THE ELECTION OF THE SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE MEMBERS WHO ALREADY SIT IN THE CURRENT PARLIAMENT . THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT DECISION HAS THE EFFECT OF DISCRIMINATING AGAINST THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT .

23 IN THE WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS WHICH THE PARLIAMENT HAS SUBMITTED IN THESE INTERIM PROCEEDINGS , IT CONSIDERS ONLY THE SECOND SUBMISSION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS . IN THAT CONNECTION IT DENIES THAT THE ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT . THE FORMULA FOR ALLOCATION WAS DRAWN UP BY REFERENCE TO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA ON THE BASIS OF A FLAT-RATE AMOUNT AND A PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT . THE FACT THAT THE CRITERION USED FOR ALLOCATING THE PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT IS THE NUMBER OF SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE MEMBERS IN EACH POLITICAL GROUP IN THE PRESENT PARLIAMENT IS FULLY JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THOSE MEMBERS ARE IN THE BEST POSITION TO PROVIDE IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ACCURATE INFORMATION ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS THROUGH THE POLITICAL GROUPS . IN ITS VIEW THE APPLICATION IS THEREFORE MANIFESTLY UNFOUNDED .

24 AT THE HEARING , IN REPLY TO A QUESTION PUT TO IT , THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ALSO GAVE ITS VIEWS ON THE FIRST SUBMISSION PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS AND EXPLAINED WHY , IN ITS VIEW , THE APPROPRIATIONS IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS ELECTION CAMPAIGN FUNDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LES VERTS JUDGMENT , AND WHY THEY MUST BE REGARDED AS INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FUNDS . THE PRINCIPAL GROUND ON WHICH THE COURT ANNULLED THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S DECISION AT ISSUE IN THAT JUDGMENT WAS THAT IT TOOK THE VIEW THAT ELECTORAL PROCEDURE , WHICH INCLUDES INTER ALIA THE RULES DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT ELECTORAL PROCEDURE IS PROPERLY CONDUCTED AND THAT THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES ARE AFFORDED EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN , REMAINS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES . ON THE OTHER HAND , THE DECISION IN LES VERTS WAS NOT INTENDED TO DEPRIVE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND ITS POLITICAL GROUPS OF THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SUCH AS AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT . THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONSIDERS THAT IT IS SUFFICIENT TO AVOID ANY POLITICAL ACTION , IN THIS INSTANCE ANY UTILIZATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS DURING THE ELECTORAL PERIOD , TO ESCAPE THE ILLEGALITY WHICH LED TO THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION CONTESTED IN THE LES VERTS CASE . THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT LAST REQUIREMENT SINCE IT LAYS DOWN RULES INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE FUNDS IN QUESTION CANNOT BE USED DURING THE ELECTORAL PERIOD . IT DOES NOT THEREFORE ENCROACH UPON THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES IN MATTERS OF ELECTORAL PROCEDURE .

25 IT APPEARS THAT IN THIS CASE THE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES CONCERNS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE FUNDS REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 MUST BE REGARDED AS FUNDS INTENDED TO FINANCE AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN OR AS FUNDS INTENDED TO REIMBURSE ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES , IN WHICH CASE THE ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN ITS LES VERTS JUDGMENT , SINCE IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW THE SETTING UP OF A SCHEME FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND THE INTRODUCTION OF DETAILED ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION REMAIN WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES .

26 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE REAL NATURE OF THE APPROPRIATIONS IN QUESTION , IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE SYSTEM OF FINANCING SET UP BY THE CONTESTED DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT IN LES VERTS . ACCORDING TO THOSE CRITERIA , AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN CONDUCTED BY POLITICAL PARTIES IS IN PRINCIPLE A PARTY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN AND , MOREOVER , WHERE SUCH A PARTY PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN FALLS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN , THE FUNDS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED FOR IT CONSTITUTE A FORTIORI A SCHEME FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES .

27 IT IS TRUE THAT IN THIS CASE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ADOPTED CERTAIN RULES INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS IN QUESTION COULD NOT BE USED DURING THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN . THUS , FOR EXAMPLE , ARTICLE 3 OF THE RULES OF 26 JUNE 1986 CONCERNING INFORMATION ACTIVITIES FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL PROVIDES THAT : ' NO INFORMATION ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ON THE BASIS OF THESE RULES MAY BE MOUNTED DURING THE ELECTORAL PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE LEGISLATION OF THE COUNTRY CONCERNED RELATING TO EUROPEAN ELECTIONS . ' IT SHOULD , HOWEVER , BE NOTED , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS REFERRED TO IN THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 ARE INTENDED TO FINANCE AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN CONDUCTED BY POLITICAL PARTIES . SECONDLY , IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ABOVE-MENTIONED RULES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS BEING USED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN . IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT , NOTWITHSTANDING THE ADOPTION BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED RULES , THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT , AT FIRST SIGHT , BE RULED OUT THAT THE SYSTEM OF FINANCING INSTITUTED BY THAT DECISION MAY BE EQUATED TO A SCHEME FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGN EXPENSES AND HENCE THAT , BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT IN LES VERTS , IN THE PRESENT STATE OF COMMUNITY LAW IT REMAINS WITHIN THE COMPETENCE OF THE MEMBER STATES TO SET UP SUCH A SYSTEM AND TO INTRODUCE DETAILED ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION .

28 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS IT MAY BE ACCEPTED THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN PUTTING FORWARD RELEVANT ARGUMENTS WHICH SHOULD BE ANALYSED MORE THOROUGHLY WHEN THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE APPLICANTS ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR .

29 ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANTS HAVE PUT FORWARD FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR , THE COURT MUST ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY .

30 THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE URGENCY OF AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES , AS STIPULATED IN ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEED TO MAKE AN INTERIM ORDER IN ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PARTY SEEKING THE INTERIM MEASURE .

31 IN THAT RESPECT THE APPLICANTS MAINTAIN THAT THE ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 WOULD CAUSE THEM SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSS . THEY ASSESS THAT LOSS AT ECU 99 459 , THE SUM WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE TO THEM , IN ADDITION TO THE ECU 17 500 WHICH THEY RECEIVED , IF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS FOR SPAIN AND PORTUGAL WHICH THEY HAD SUBMITTED ON 9 JULY 1986 TO THE ENLARGED BUREAU AND WHICH WAS IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF 9 JULY 1986 ADOPTING THE FORMULA FOR THE ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 IN RESPECT OF THE GENERAL PROGRAMME HAD BEEN ADOPTED .

32 AT THE HEARING , IN REPLY TO A QUESTION PUT TO THEM , THE APPLICANTS STATED THAT THE DAMAGE OF WHICH THEY COMPLAINED WAS NOT ONLY FINANCIAL BUT , ABOVE ALL , POLITICAL ; IN OTHER WORDS THEY WERE BEING PREVENTED FROM PARTICIPATING FULLY IN THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN OR ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS WHICH ARE TO BE HELD IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL .

33 MOREOVER , IN THEIR VIEW , THAT ADDITIONAL POLITICAL DIMENSION OF THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED UNDERLINES ITS IRREPARABLE NATURE IN SO FAR AS THE COURT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE JUDGMENT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN QUESTION , OR INDEED , UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS THEMSELVES . THUS THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE HAD THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS AND TO WIN SEATS .

34 FOR ITS PART , THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONTENDS THAT THE DAMAGE ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANTS IS EXCLUSIVELY FINANCIAL AND THAT IT CAN IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS SERIOUS . IT CONSIDERS THAT , PENDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS , THE APPLICANTS COULD ALWAYS OBTAIN A LOAN WHICH WOULD ENABLE THEM TO FINANCE THEIR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL . THE ONLY DAMAGE WHICH THEY WOULD SUFFER AS A RESULT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 WOULD THEREFORE BE THE COST OF INTEREST ON A SUM WHICH COULD NOT , IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES , EXCEED THE ECU 99 459 REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH 30 OF THIS ORDER .

35 NOR , IN THE PARLIAMENT ' S VIEW , IS THE DAMAGE ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANTS IRREPARABLE SINCE , IN ANY EVENT , THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IS IN A POSITION TO MAKE GOOD ANY DAMAGE WHICH THE COURT FINDS THE APPLICANTS TO HAVE SUFFERED .

36 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EMPHASIZES IN ADDITION THAT , WHILST THE DAMAGE WHICH THE APPLICANTS ALLEGE CANNOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE REGARDED AS SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE , THE DAMAGE WHICH IT WOULD ITSELF SUFFER SHOULD THE APPLICATION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 BE ALLOWED IS , ON THE OTHER HAND , EXTREMELY SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE AND , IN ANY EVENT , VASTLY GREATER THAN ANY FINANCIAL LOSS WHICH THE APPLICANTS ALLEGE . TO ORDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION UNTIL THE COURT HAS RULED ON THE MAIN APPLICATION , IN OTHER WORDS PROBABLY , AT THE EARLIEST , UNTIL THE END OF 1987 OR THE BEGINNING OF 1988 , WOULD AMOUNT IN PRACTICE TO PROHIBITING THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FROM CARRYING OUT , THROUGH ITS POLITICAL GROUPS , ITS FUNCTION OF INFORMING THE PUBLIC SINCE THE UTILIZATION OF THE APPROPRIATIONS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE POLITICAL GROUPS FOR THAT INFORMATION CAMPAIGN BY THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 MUST CEASE ON THE OPENING OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL . THE PARLIAMENT NOTES THAT THOSE ELECTIONS ARE EXPECTED TO TAKE PLACE IN 1987 AND , IN FACT , PROBABLY IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THAT YEAR .

37 AT THE HEARING , THE APPLICANTS ' LAWYER INFORMED THE COURT THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FROM HIS CLIENTS TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO OBTAIN A BANK LOAN TO COVER THE DAMAGE WHICH THEY ALLEGE , NAMELY ECU 99 459 .
38 IT SHOULD BE STATED IN THAT RESPECT THAT SINCE THE SUM IN QUESTION IS SMALL THERE ARE AT FIRST SIGHT GROUNDS FOR THINKING THAT THE APPLICANTS COULD , IF THEY SO WISHED , OBTAIN A LOAN FOR THAT AMOUNT . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONLY DAMAGE WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO BEAR WOULD BE THE COST OF THE INTEREST PAYABLE ON THAT AMOUNT PENDING THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT ON THE MAIN APPLICATION , NAMELY A MAXIMUM OF ECU 15 000 PER ANNUM , A SUM WHICH , ON THE FACE OF IT , CAN ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY BE REGARDED AS LIABLE TO CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE APPLICANTS .

39 IF THE APPLICANTS WERE TO OBTAIN SUCH A LOAN PENDING THE DECISION OF THE COURT ON THE MAIN APPLICATION , IT WOULD ENABLE THEM IN ADDITION TO FINANCE THEIR INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL AND WOULD , CONSEQUENTLY , ALSO PROTECT THEM FROM THE IRREPARABLE POLITICAL DAMAGE WHICH THEY CLAIM THEY WILL SUFFER AS A RESULT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 .
40 IT SHOULD ALSO BE STRESSED THAT THE GRANT OF AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THAT DECISION WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DEPRIVING ALL POLITICAL GROUPS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , INCLUDING THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT , OF ANY DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN . IN THAT CASE TOO , THEREFORE , THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT WOULD THEREFORE HAVE TO BORROW FUNDS TO FINANCE ITS INFORMATION CAMPAIGN FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS IN SPAIN AND PORTUGAL . IN ANY EVENT , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IF THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORWARD BY THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT IN THE MAIN APPLICATION WERE UPHELD , THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT NO FUNDS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE POLITICAL GROUPS , INCLUDING THE GROUP OF THE EUROPEAN RIGHT . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THAT POLITICAL GROUP COULD SUFFER DAMAGE IF THE INTERIM MEASURE WHICH IT SEEKS WERE REFUSED .

41 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY DECISIVE ARGUMENT ESTABLISHING THAT THEY WOULD SUFFER SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE IF THE COURT REFUSED TO GRANT THEIR APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF 10 JULY 1986 .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE PRESIDENT ,
BY WAY OF AN INTERIM DECISION ,
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .

( 2 ) THIS ORDER SETS ASIDE AND REPLACES THAT OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1986 .
( 3)THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .