This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023TN0138
Case T-138/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council
Case T-138/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council
Case T-138/23: Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council
OJ C 216, 19.6.2023, p. 47–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
19.6.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 216/47 |
Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Semmelweis Egyetem v Council
(Case T-138/23)
(2023/C 216/63)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Semmelweis Egyetem (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: P. Nagy and B. Karsai, lawyers)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant; or alternatively, |
— |
annul Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 in its entirety; and, in either case, |
— |
order that the defendant pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
1. |
First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks a sufficiently solid factual basis. The defendant should have based its decision to adopt the contested decision on duly established facts. Instead, it is argued that the defendant relied on the unsubstantiated assessment and proposal from the European Commission.
|
2. |
Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, a person affected by the contested decision, has been denied the opportunity to defend its rights; and so its right to be heard has been infringed. Should the applicant’s right to be heard not have been denied, it would have resulted in considerations leading to proper, proportionate, relevant and honest limitations of the measures adopted. |
3. |
Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision lacks proper authorisation and that the defendant misused its rights.
|
4. |
Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of proportionality, a fundamental principle of EU law. In order to ensure strict adherence to the principle of proportionality, the institution adopting an act has an obligation to weigh up appropriately the various interests at play, analyse their function and role, and make decisions accordingly. In this case, the applicant asserts that there is no identifiable evidence that would suggest that the interests of the applicant were taken into account at any level or in any form or that the situation of the applicant was analysed, let alone objectively, diligently, and proportionally, prior to the adoption of the measures included in Article 2(2) of the contested decision, hence its detrimental effect on the applicant. |
5. |
Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision distorts the market in which the applicant is competing. Prohibition of distortion of the market with no justification is embedded in the fundamental freedoms of the Union. Limiting the applicant’s business for the benefit of its competitors violates the fundamental freedoms of the Union. |
(1) Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary (OJ 2022 L 325, p. 94).
(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ 2020 L 433I, p. 1).
(3) See paragraph 56 of the judgment of 5 May 2015 in Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Case C-146/13, EU:C:2015:298).