Brussels, 17/09/2013 (Agence Europe) - On 17 September, the European Court of Justice rejected the Council's appeal for an annulment (C-77/11) of an Act decided by the president of the European Parliament on 15 December 2010 establishing the budget for the 2011 tax year. The Court has definitively adopted this Act.
The Council of the European Union argued that, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (December 2009), budgetary procedure had been considerably modified, which made the Parliament and Council equal partners. Therefore, according to the Council, the annual Union budget and amending budgets should, at the end of procedure, be drawn up through a legislative act (regulation, directive or decision) jointly signed by the presidents of the Parliament and Council. It therefore considered that the Act constituting the definitive adoption of the annual budget of 2011 was illegal insofar as this involved a nontypical (nonlegislative) Act by which the president of the Parliament had declared the end of the budgetary procedure alone. Nonetheless, the Council, supported by Spain, did not contest the actual substance of the budget but demanded that the Court temporarily maintain the effects of the contested Act, such as those published in the Official Journal of the European Union, until the date on which this budget be established in compliance with the treaty (TFUE).
The Court's decision confirms the validity of the act signed by the president of the EP alone and consequently declares the definitive adoption of the EU general budget 2011. According to the Court, contrary to what the Council claimed, the definitive adoption of the budget does not require a legislative act co-signed by the presidents of the EP and Council (Article 314 TFUE). It points out that the EU budget, which is now adopted according to special procedure (and not according to ordinary procedure as argued by the Council and Spain), is essentially an accounting document setting out estimates for the European Union of all income and expenditure over a certain period. After the president of the Parliament has verified that the procedure complies with the provisions of the treaty, the document is annexed to the act by which the president declares that the budget has been definitively adopted. This Act, signed by the president of the Parliament alone, is the final phase of the budget adoption procedure and thus endows the budget with binding force. It does not take the shape of a legislative act exactly but does constitute a contested measure in Court as far as it endows the Union budget with binding force.
The Court also rejects the Council's argument that by adopting this contested measure, Parliament had failed in its duty to reasonably cooperate. It argues that an agreement on the content of the 2011 budget had been reached between Parliament and the Council on 15 December 2010, following parliament's vote on the budget during the plenary session and that the president of the Council had welcomed this. Therefore, it argues that, although there was a difference of opinion between the two institutions on the formalisation of this agreement, this did not prevent the president of the Parliament pointing out that day that “the procedure begun has been completed and the Union's general budget for the financial year 2011 has been definitively adopted”. It also concluded that insofar as the president of the Parliament alone is able to sign the measure contested by the Council, the question of violating reasonable co-operation by the president of the Parliament does not arise.
Finally, according to the Court, the EP has not breached forms of procedure, given that under the terms of the agreement between the two institutions on the contents of the budget, the president of the EP could have adopted the measure contested by the Council that same day, in full compliance with the treaty. (FG/transl.fl)