C 71/34 EN Official Journal of the 20.3.2004

Action brought on 15 January 2004 by Jens Peter Bonde Pleas in law and main arguments and others against the and the Council of the European Union

(Case T-13/04) In support of their application the applicants submit that the contested regulation violates article 191 of the EC treaty in that the recognition of alliances of political parties as European political parties does not promote integration within the (2004/C 71/61) European Union, the formation of a European awareness or the expression of the political will of the Union’s citizens. They further allege that it violates declaration No. 11 on Article 191 of the EC Treaty, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty of (Language of the case: English) Nice, in that it involves a prohibited transfer of powers to the European Community, does not provide adequate guarantees that the funds allocated will not be used for the activities of national political parties and discriminates against smaller and minority political groups. They also submit that the contested regulation violates articles 5, 189 and 202 of the EC Treaty by conferring implementing and decision making powers to the European Parliament. An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 January 2004 by Jens Peter Bonde, Bagsvaerd, (), Inger Schörling, Gärle, (Sweden), Paul-Mari Coûteaux, Mirbeau, (France), Nigel Paul Farage, Westerham, (United Kingdom), William Abitbol, The applicants also submit that the contested regulation Paris, (France), Bent Hindrup Andersen, Horsens, (Denmark), violates a number of fundamental rights, in particular the Graham H. Booth, Paignton, (United Kingdom), Florence principle against discrimination, the freedom of thought, Kuntz, Lyon, (France), Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, Copenhagen, conscience and religion, and the freedom of expression, which (Denmark), Jeffrey William Titford, Frinton-on-Sea, (United the applicants consider are violated by the requirement Kingdom), Per Gahrton, Täby, (Sweden), Herman Schmid, for unconditional endorsement of European principles as a Copenhagen, (Denmark), Jonas Sjöstedt, Umeå, (Sweden), precondition for funding, as well as the freedom of association Pernille Frahm, Bjert, (Denmark), Roger Helmer, Lutterworth, and assembly, allegedly violated because the contested regu- (United Kingdom), Daniel J. Hannan, Geat Bookham, (United lation makes provision for eligibility thresholds which exclude Kingdom), Georges Berthu, Longré, (France), Dominique minority parties and independent national political parties. F. C. Souchet, Saint-Gemme la Plaine, (France), Thierry de la Perriere, Luc-sur-Mer, (France), Hans Kronberger, Vienna, (Austria), Jean-Louis Bernie, Nantes, (France), Yves Butel, Amiens, (France) and Ole Krarup, Helsingor, (Denmark), represented by J. Dhont, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further, the applicants submit that the contested regulation violates a series of basic principles of European Union law, namely: The principle of equal treatment by discriminating against minority and independent political parties, the prin- ciple of democracy, by treating members of the European The applicant claims that the Court should: Parliament differently based on whether or not they are members of European parties, and the rule of law, in that the European Parliament has adopted the contested measure as — Declare Regulation (EC) No. 2004/2003 of the European co-legislator and will also be the one to implement and Parliament and of the Council of November 4, 2003, on administer it. The applicants also consider that principles and the regulations governing political parties at European traditions common to Member States are violated in that very level and the rules regarding their funding, null and void, high thresholds are set for funding and allegiance to certain or in second order, declare certain parts null and void, European political ideals is required. The applicants also invoke or in third order only, order lawful application and a misuse of powers by the European Parliament and the implementation of the European Political Parties Regu- Council, and violations of the principles of proportionality lation so that Applicant’s objections are effectively and of subsidiarity. resolved;

— Order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs of (1) the proceedings and (2) the Applicant’s lawyer’s fees, in accordance with applicable law.