Brussels, 13/12/2012 (Agence Europe) - In a ruling on 13 December on combined cases C-237/11 and C-238/11, the European Court of Justice ruled that the 12 periods of plenary part-sessions for October 2012 and 2013, split into two parts by the European Parliament in a vote taken on 9 March 2009, cannot be regarded individually as periods of monthly plenary part-sessions. The EP had cancelled two four-day plenaries, usually held in Strasbourg, one in October 2012 and one in October 2013, dividing the remaining October plenaries into two two-day sittings. The Court of Justice explained that the two-day sittings did not meet: - the requirements laid down in the treaties that the EP must hold twelve plenaries a year (one each month, including its budget sitting); - the Court of Justice ruling in Case C-345/95 saying that member states, which have the power over such matters, have decided that Strasbourg is the headquarters of the European Parliament and 12 normal sittings should be held there each year, organised on a regular basis.
According to parliamentary practice, the ordinary four-day EP sessions are held in Strasbourg each month. Two are held in October, to make up for the fact that there is no plenary in August. In its 2009 decision (see above), the European Parliament decided that to keep costs down (shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg), it would reduce the length of the two October sittings and hold two extra sitting in Brussels, where committee work takes place. France, backed by Luxembourg, took the EP to court over this, saying it destroyed the regularity of plenaries by having two additional sittings in Brussels and only eleven normal plenaries in Strasbourg, a case backed by the Court of Justice.
In the ruling, the Court of Justice said that its case-law in this connection says that it is for member states to decide about the EP headquarters being in Strasbourg and that they had done so without damaging the EP's internal set-up. It points out that the EP's decision makes a reduction in the time that the EP can spend in debate in October 2012 and October 2013 and in order for a plenary sitting to be considered a normal plenary, it has to be the equivalent in duration as the other normal monthly sittings, as laid down by the treaties, but this is not the case for the two-day sittings in October 2012 and October 2013 decided upon by the EP. It also points out that the EP did not give any organisational reasons for such a drastic reduction in the duration of the two October sittings. While admitting that shuttling between Brussels and Strasbourg is expensive and inconvenient for the EP, it points out that it is not for the EP itself, or even the Court of Justice, to solve this problem because it is a decision in the power of the member states.
There have been many reactions to this ruling about Strasbourg being the headquarters of the European Parliament. French European affairs minister Bernard Cazeneuve welcomed it in a press release arguing that it reflected the desire of the builders of Europe to have a multi-centred Europe, and this was echoed by most French MEPs, who described is as a victory in terms of keeping the EP headquarters in Strasbourg (Véronique Mathieu, EPP) and a “slap in the face” for opponents of Strasbourg (French social democrats at the EP). Pointing out that MEPs must scrupulously respect the treaties, the head of the EPP, Joseph Daul of France, called on MEPs to reject any amendments against the Court of Justice's decision. The ruling was welcomed with bitterness and disappointment by British Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and German FDP-members. (FG/transl.fl)