This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CN0540
Case C-540/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-540/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-540/13: Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
OJ C 359, 7.12.2013, p. 6–6
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
7.12.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 359/6 |
Action brought on 15 October 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-540/13)
2013/C 359/09
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Council Decision 2013/392/EU of 22 July 2013 fixing the date of effect of Decision 2008/633/JHA concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences; (1) |
|
— |
maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/392/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The European Parliament puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action.
First, the European Parliament disputes the Council’s use of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2013/392/EU. The European Parliament should in fact have been involved in the adoption of the contested decision under an ordinary legislative procedure. Having not been involved with the adoption of the act, the European Parliament considers that the decision-making procedure followed by the Council is vitiated by an essential procedural requirement.
Second, the European Parliament alleges that the Council used either a legal basis which had been repealed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, or a secondary legal basis which is unlawful under the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Finally, should the Court of Justice decide to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be appropriate for the Court to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in accordance with law.