Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013CN0425

    Case C-425/13: Action brought on 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

    OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 17–17 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
    OJ C 274, 21.9.2013, p. 12–12 (HR)

    21.9.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 274/17

    Action brought on 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

    (Case C-425/13)

    2013/C 274/29

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

    Defendant: Council of the European Union

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Article 2, second sentence, and Section A of the Addendum/Annex to the Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on linking the EU emissions trading scheme with an emissions trading system in Australia, or, in the alternative,

    —

    annul the Council Decision and to maintain the effects of the contested decision in case it is totally annulled, and

    —

    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    First plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU, 218(2) to (4) TFEU and 295 TFEU and the principle of institutional balance. The Commission submits that the Council infringed Article 218 TFEU by imposing unilaterally upon the Commission a detailed procedure that creates ex novo powers for the Council and obligations upon the Commission that are not based in that provision. The Council has also infringed Article 13(2) TEU, in conjunction with Article 218(4) TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, because the Council has expanded its powers conferred on it by the Treaties to the detriment of the Commission and the European Parliament

    Second plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU and 218 TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, since the contested Decision provides that the detailed negotiating positions of the Union shall be established by the Special Committee or the Council. Article 218(4) TFEU gives only a consultative role to the Special Committee.

    Top