Action brought on 23 November 2015 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-626/15)

(2016/C 059/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, E. Paasivirta, C. Hermes, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission respectfully asks the Court to annul the decision of the Council of 11 September 2015 inasmuch as the Council required that the reflection document to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources for the creation of a marine protected area in the Weddell Sea be submitted on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, rather than on behalf of the European Union alone.

The Commission submits that, by considering that competence in the matter is shared and indicating, consequently, that the reflection document should be decided by consensus and be submitted on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, the contested decision is unlawful, in that it thus precludes the Commission from submitting that document on behalf of the European Union alone, in breach of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the matter (and of the Commission’s prerogatives to represent the European Union).

The Commission raises two pleas in law in support of its action for annulment of the contested decision.

In the first place, the Commission submits that, by adopting the contested act, the Council breached the European Union’s exclusive competence in the matter of the conservation of marine biological resources, as laid down in Article 3(1)(d) TFEU. First, the Commission argues that the Council disregarded the legal context of the measure concerned by the contested act, both in connection with the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and with the European Union. Secondly, the Commission maintains that the Council disregarded the purpose and the content of that measure.

In the second place, the Commission submits, in the alternative, that even if the measure did not have to be regarded as a measure for the conservation of marine biological resources within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) TFEU, by adopting the contested act, the Council, in any event, infringed the European Union’s exclusive competence inasmuch as the European Union has exclusive external competence in the matter because the measure envisaged may affect rules of the European Union or alter their scope for the purpose of Article 3(2) TFEU. First, the Commission argues that the Council disregarded the fact that the measure envisaged may affect or alter two regulations of secondary law (Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 (2)). Secondly, the Commission submits that the Council did not take account of the effect on, or alteration of, the framework position of the European Union of June 2014.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 600/2004 of 22 March 2004 laying down certain technical measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources (OJ 2004 L 97, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 601/2004 of 22 March 2004 laying down certain control measures applicable to fishing activities in the area covered by the Convention on the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 3943/90, (EC) No 66/98 and (EC) No 1721/1999 (OJ 2004 L 97, p. 16).