Authority for European Political Parties and
European Political Foundations

Prohibitions of direct and indirect funding

Based on experience in the practical application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 (the "Regulation") over the past years, the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations (the "Authority") endeavours to provide access to a set of non-exhaustive elements of guidance for European political parties and European political foundations. Any guidance provided by the Authority does not affect the directly binding character of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014. Moreover, such guidance will remain subject to adaptation as experience further builds up and/or the legislative framework changes.

Activities of associated entities of a European political party

  • The Authority recalls that Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 is relevant also to activities carried out by European-level associated entities which receive financial support from a European political party.
  • Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 does not prohibit joint activities by a European political party's associated entities with member parties or the latter's associated entities.
  • However, the provision requires a European political party to ensure that in case of joint activities of its associated entities with member parties or the latter's associated entities, the co-financing rate reflects a number of factors linked to the context and the content of the event in question (see above). More particularly, the following factors have to be taken into account:
    • visibility of the European political party or its European associated entity;
    • level of ownership of the event by the European political party's associated entity; and
    • the co-financing share by the European political party's associated entity has to be proportionate to its visibility and level of ownership as compared to that of the member party or the latter's associated entity.

Joint activities

  • Joint activities between European political parties or European political foundations with partners at national level are not per se prohibited by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014. In particular, the communication with audience activated by a national partner for purposes of European political party or foundation activities may be an effective means of bringing attention to European politics and policy matters. That said, the prohibitions of funding laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 must be complied with at all times.

  • In case of an activity carried out jointly by a European political party with another political party, in particular a national party, an excessive financing share by the European political party of such activity might constitute "indirect funding" as prohibited by Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014.

  • In case of an activity carried out jointly by a European political foundation with a political party or another foundation, an excessive financing share by the European political foundation of such activity might constitute "indirect funding" as prohibited by Article 22(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014. .

  • To assess the existence of a possible indirect funding of a party or foundation at national level under this provision, a number of factors have to be taken into account, such as in particular:

    • consistent visibility of the European political party/foundation;

    • level of ownership of the activity by the European political party or foundation as compared to the one of the party or foundation at national level. In assessing the latter, the overall context of the activity, the scope, the content, the objectives, the target group(s), the motivation, and the potential value of the activity for the national party's success in national elections are of relevance (see also MENL v Parliament, T-829/16, paragraphs 83ff.);

    • the co-financing share borne by the European political party/ foundation, which should show a realistic correlation with the overall involvement of the European political party/ foundation, compared to the involvement of the national party at the specific activity (see also MENL v Parliament, T-829/16, paragraph 89).

  • In absence of knowledge on the overall cost of a joint activity, the Authority would usually have to inquire further on the activity, as it is one of the key factors for the assessment of compliance with Article 22 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014. In such circumstances, additional documentation such as an invitation or any other supporting document could be useful, without prejudice to the case-by-case analysis, which may lead to additional information needs.

  • In view of possible additional requests for information from the Authority on joint activities, it is useful for European political parties and European political foundations to have a standard set of documentation readily available for each of their joint activities, in particular any financial arrangements where they exist, photos, detailed programmes.

Candidate

  • In relation to candidates, Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 requires a case-by-case assessment as to whether a 'candidate' has been provided with 'direct or indirect funding' by the European political party.
  • Relevant criteria as to whether a person is considered 'candidate' comprise:

    • whether there are reasonable grounds to consider that the person, at the time of an activity of a European political party in which the person participates, is engaged in a candidacy for election, especially in light of public statements as well as the candidate nomination process in party and/or Member State in question; and

    • the time-line between an activity in which that person participates and the elections.
  • Persons who previously were running for an elected office (irrespective of whether they actually were elected) are no longer a 'candidate' set out in Article 22(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1141/2014 for the purposes of a post-electoral activity, unless by that time they are a candidate for re-election or are running for a different elected office, in light of the criteria explained above.
  • Please be reminded that Article 22(1) of the Regulation may apply for other reasons, also in absence of a 'candidate' at the time of the activity, e.g. because at an activity paid for by a European political party an (already) elected representative of a member party provides visibility and content to that member party at the expense of the European political party (please see above the general guidance on joint activities in that respect).

  • The official campaign period is not necessarily the only relevant aspect. The question of a candidate has to be evaluated according to national law and pre-electoral customs (e.g. primaries within the party). The main yardstick for the Authority is whether, at the time of the activity, the candidacy is already known and promoted, irrespective of the formal stage it is in.

  • Where a European political party or European political foundation covers for the travelling cost of a candidate this could be considered as a benefit for the candidate, if otherwise the candidate would reasonably have had to pay for this from campaigning budget. Further elements such as the scope and place of the activity, need also to be evaluated.

General

  • Indirect funding exists in cases where a national political party or a candidate derives a financial advantage, inter alia by avoiding expenditure which it would have had to incur, even where no funds are directly transferred" (MENL v Parliament, T-829/16; ADDE v Parliament, T-48/17).
  • In order to assess whether indirect funding exists, the Authority relies on a range of elements, such as elements concerning the content of the financed measure, as well as geographic and time elements (see MENL v Parliament, T-829/16; ADDE v Parliament, T-48/17).
  • In order to prove the existence of indirect funding, it is sufficient to rely on a "sufficiently concrete, precise and consistent body of evidence" (ACRE v Parliament, T-107/19).