In a judgment returned on Tuesday 2 October in case C-73/17, the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that the European Parliament may exercise some of its budgetary powers in Brussels rather than Strasbourg, if so required by imperatives connected to the proper functioning of the budgetary procedure.
In February 2017, France, supported by Luxembourg, applied to the Court to cancel acts of the European Parliament on the adoption of the general budget of the EU for 2017 (see EUROPE 11724).
The second-reading debates on the joint draft budget, the EP's vote on this and its President's act noting its adoption did indeed take place at an extra plenary session held in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December 2016, rather than in Strasbourg as France would have liked. Paris takes as its basis the protocol on the seat of the institutions annexed to the EU Treaties, which states that the European Parliament has its headquarters in Strasbourg.
In his conclusions of 5 June, CJEU Advocate General, Melchior Wathelet, found partially in France's favour by suggesting overturning the act in which the EP President noted the adoption of the joint draft budget, whilst provisionally maintaining its effects in place (see EUROPE 12034), as this act could have been adopted in Strasbourg at the ordinary session of December 2016.
In its judgment, the Court first of all considers that the expression “budgetary session” referred to by the protocol in question covers all European Parliament plenary sessions, rather than just the ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.
It adds that the European Parliament must respect the deadlines in place for the exercise of its budgetary powers in plenary, so as to ensure the adoption of the annual EU budget before the end of the year preceding the financial year in question. For this to be the case, the debates and votes must be based on a text presented to the MEPs in a timely fashion.
Finally, stressing that the protocol in question and the provisions of the Treaties have the same legal value, the obligation to exercise budgetary powers in Strasbourg that result from the protocol does not prevent the annual budget from being debated and voted on at an additional plenary session in Brussels, if imperatives connected to the smooth functioning of the budgetary procedure so required.
The CJEU therefore considers that the European Parliament committed no error in assessment by adopting the contested acts in Brussels.
This Court judgment is unlikely to make happy reading for the French MEPs, who are in favour of keeping the headquarters of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “This is a blow to Strasbourg, the heart of Europe of democracy and the citizens”, said Anne Sander (EPP, France), after the judgment fell. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)