header-logo header-logo

EU

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll