Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62024CN0553

Case C-553/24: Action brought on 14 August 2024 – Assemblée nationale de la République française v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

OJ C, C/2024/5616, 30.9.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5616/oj (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5616/oj

European flag

Official Journal
of the European Union

EN

C series


C/2024/5616

30.9.2024

Action brought on 14 August 2024 – Assemblée nationale de la République française v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

(Case C-553/24)

(C/2024/5616)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Assemblée nationale de la République française (represented by: C. Fergon, avocat)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

primarily, annul Regulation (EU) 2024/1351 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on asylum and migration management, amending Regulations (EU) 2021/1147 and (EU) 2021/1060 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 604/2013; (1)

in the alternative, annul Part IV (‘Solidarity’) of that regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In essence, the applicant claims that the contested regulation exceeds the competences of the institutions of the European Union and is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity as defined and guaranteed by Articles 4 and 5 TEU.

According to the applicant, that regulation establishes, in particular in Article 56(2), Article 63(5), and Articles 67 and 68 thereof, a system for the ‘relocation’ of applicants for international protection which is to the detriment of the sovereignty, national identity, integrity of constitutional structures, and security of the Member States, which will be under an obligation to receive into their territory third-country nationals who are the subject of ‘relocation’ measures.

According to the applicant, Article 72 TFEU establishes a ‘national security reservation’ which constitutes an essential component of the principle of subsidiarity. Any infringement of that clause therefore constitutes a breach of that principle.

In the applicant’s view, the ‘relocation’ mechanism established by the contested regulation will prevent the Member States from performing their essential functions within the meaning of Article 4 TEU, in particular maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. Member States are likely to find themselves de facto in a situation which will prevent them from effectively relying on the ‘national security clause’.

As for the method of calculating the financial contribution, the applicant argues that that method does not take into account a country’s reception capacity, social policy, identity of peoples, or security situation. That system undermines the social policy (lato sensu) obligation referred to in Article 151 TFEU.


(1)  OJ 2024 L, 22.5.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5616/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)


Top