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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll