This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62026CN0398
Case C-398/26: Action brought on 24 April 2026 – Slovak Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Case C-398/26: Action brought on 24 April 2026 – Slovak Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Case C-398/26: Action brought on 24 April 2026 – Slovak Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
OJ C, C/2026/3051, 15.6.2026, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3051/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)
|
Official Journal |
EN C series |
|
C/2026/3051 |
15.6.2026 |
Action brought on 24 April 2026 – Slovak Republic v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
(Case C-398/26)
(C/2026/3051)
Language of the case: Slovak
Parties
Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: E.V. Larišová and A. Lukáčik, acting as Agents, and A. Kadela, and T. Bardelčík, lawyers)
Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
declare Regulation (EU) 2026/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) 2026/261 (1) of 26 January 2026, on the phased cessation of imports of Russian natural gas and preparations for the cessation of imports of Russian oil, on improving the monitoring of potential energy dependencies, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938, to be invalid; |
|
— |
order European Parliament and Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
|
1. |
The first plea in law alleges an incorrect choice of legal basis. The correct legal basis for measures such as those set out in Regulation 2026/261 should be exclusively Article 215(1) TFEU, which is of a lex specialis nature. Measures that lead to a restriction of economic relations with a specific third country must be based on Article 215(1) TFEU, in so far as they primarily pursue objectives specific to the common foreign and security policy. The measures set forth in Regulation 2026/261 correspond to restrictive measures in terms of their content and purpose, and also in light of their adoption in the context of the ongoing war waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The decision to base Regulation 2026/261 on different legal grounds served a specific purpose. |
|
2. |
The second plea in law, which is in the alternative to the first ground of appeal, alleges a violation of the principles of proportionality and solidarity. Regulation 2026/261 is contrary to the principle of proportionality, as the measures provided for are manifestly inappropriate for achieving the stated objective. In the alternative, the stated objective of Regulation 2026/261 could have been achieved by other, less restrictive measures. The serious negative impacts associated with the application of Regulation 2026/261, particularly on the Slovak Republic and economic operators within its territory, are manifestly disproportionate to the stated objective and are contrary to the principle of solidarity. |
|
3. |
The third plea in law alleges a breach of the obligation to state reasons for legal acts. |
(1) OJ L, 2026/261.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3051/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)