header-logo header-logo

27 September 2013
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

EU

Council of the European Union v European Parliament C-77/11, [2013] All ER (D) 160 (Sep)

In November 2010, the President of the Council of the EU wrote to the President of the defendant European Parliament stating that both presidents were required to sign the act establishing the EU's annual budget. In December, the Council adopted its position on the draft budget for the financial year 2011. Subsequently, the President of the Parliament indicated that he was unable to share the council's view that the act establishing the budget had to be signed by both presidents. The following day, the President of the Parliament announced that the budget for 2011 had been approved and signed an article providing that the procedure initiated under Art 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) had been completed and the budget for 2011 had been definitively adopted (the contested measure). The Council commenced proceedings seeking the annulment of the contested measure. It submitted, inter alia, that the Treaty of Lisbon had altered the budgetary procedure significantly, making the Parliament

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll