1 . BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 28 DECEMBER 1983 , THE PARTI ECOLOGISTE ' ' LES VERTS ' ' , A NON-PROFIT-MAKING ASSOCIATION , BROUGHT AN ACTION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 22 NOVEMBER 1983 ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE DRAFT BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AT ITS SECOND READING WAS VOID .
2 . THE APPLICANT CONTESTS THAT MEASURE IN SO FAR AS IT CONTAINS A BUDGET HEADING ALLOCATING APPROPRIATIONS TO ' ' THE COSTS OF PREPARATIONS FOR THE NEXT EUROPEAN ELECTIONS ' ' . THE HEADING AT ISSUE IS ITEM 3708 , WHICH FORMS PART OF THE SECTION OF THE BUDGET RELATING TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT . IT FIRST APPEARED IN THE BUDGET FOR 1982 . IT IS ACCOMPANIED BY A REMARK TO THE EFFECT THAT ' ' THIS APPROPRIATION IS TO COVER A CONTRIBUTION TO THE COST OF PREPARATIONS FOR THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN LEADING UP TO THE SECOND DIRECT ELECTIONS IN 1984 PURSUANT TO THE DECISION ( OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S BUREAU ) OF 12 OCTOBER 1982 ' ' .
3 . BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION OF 21 DECEMBER 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 L 356 , P . 8 ), THE PARLIAMENT HAS THE POWER TO IMPLEMENT THE SECTION OF THE BUDGET RELATING TO IT . THE APPLICANT FEARS THAT IT MAY USE THAT POWER TO BENEFIT THE PARTIES REPRESENTED IN THE PARLIAMENT ELECTED IN 1979 TO THE DETRIMENT OF THOSE NOT SO REPRESENTED , WHEN IT COMES TO REIMBURSE THEIR EXPENSES IN THE 1984 ELECTION CAMPAIGN . THAT APPREHENSION IS BASED ON A DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S BUREAU DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983 C 293 , P . 1 ) - WHICH REPLACES THAT OF 12 OCTOBER 1982 - ADOPTING RULES GOVERNING THE USE OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED UNDER ITEM 3708 OF THE GENERAL BUDGET OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . UNDER THOSE RULES , 31% OF THE APPROPRIATIONS ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE POLITICAL GROUPINGS WHICH TOOK PART IN THE 1984 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS , AND THE REMAINING 69% ARE TO BE SHARED AMONGST THE PARTIES REPRESENTED IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTED IN 1979 .
4 . BY AN APPLICATION ON A PROCEDURAL ISSUE MADE UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE COUNCIL RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY AND REQUESTED THE COURT TO DECIDE UPON THAT OBJECTION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
5 . THE COUNCIL SUBMITS , IN THE FIRST PLACE , THAT THE APPLICATION IS PURPOSELESS . THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DID NOT ADOPT ANY DRAFT AMENDMENT TO ITEM 3708 AT THE FIRST READING . CONSEQUENTLY , THE COUNCIL COULD NOT MAKE ANY AMENDMENT AT THE SECOND READING , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 203 ( 5 ) OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF THE ECSC AND EURATOM TREATIES . IN THE SECOND PLACE , THE COUNCIL TAKES THE VIEW THAT ONLY THE FINALLY ADOPTED BUDGET AND THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT FORMALLY RECORDING ITS FINAL ADOPTION ARE DEFINITIVE MEASURES CAPABLE OF BEING THE SUBJECT OF AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY .
6 . IN ITS APPLICATION , THE APPLICANT ARGUES SIMPLY THAT ITS ACTION MUST BE ADMISSIBLE , SINCE OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE DENIED A REMEDY .
7 . BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 92 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE COURT MAY AT ANY TIME OF ITS OWN MOTION CONSIDER WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ABSOLUTE BAR TO PROCEEDING WITH A CASE . IN THIS INSTANCE , ONE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY IS CLEARLY NOT FULFILLED . ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF THE FINANCIAL REGULATION OF 21 DECEMBER 1977 DEFINES THE BUDGET AS ' ' THE INSTRUMENT WHICH SETS OUT FORECASTS OF , AND AUTHORIZES IN ADVANCE , THE EXPECTED REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE OF THE COMMUNITIES FOR EACH YEAR ' ' . THE PROCEDURE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET LEADS ONLY TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE COMMITMENT OF EXPENDITURE . THEREFORE A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BE DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE STEPS IN THAT PROCEDURE . SUCH A PERSON MAY BE DIRECTLY CONCERNED ONLY BY THE MEASURES TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THE BUDGET .
8 . SINCE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ORDER TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION , IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO HEAR THE ORAL ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES . IN CONSEQUENCE IT MUST BE HELD , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 92 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THAT THE APPLICATION WAS MADE BY A LEGAL PERSON NOT DIRECTLY CONCERNED BY THE CONTESTED MEASURE AND IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
AFTER HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE-RAPPORTEUR AND THE VIEWS OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,
THE COURT
COMPOSED OF : LORD MACKENZIE STUART , PRESIDENT , T . KOOPMANS , K . BAHLMANN AND Y . GALMOT ( PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS ), A . O ' KEEFFE , G . BOSCO , O . DUE , U . EVERLING AND R . JOLIET , JUDGES ,
ADVOCATE GENERAL : G . F . MANCINI
REGISTRAR : P . HEIM
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
