EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0595
Case C-595/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-595/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-595/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
OJ C 138, 27.4.2015, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.4.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 138/26 |
Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-595/14)
(2015/C 138/36)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures (1); |
|
— |
maintain the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the European Parliament relies on two pleas in law.
The first plea concerns the Council’s use of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, alternatively, a secondary legal basis which, in itself, is unlawful in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice.
The second plea concerns the Council’s use of a decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/688/EU which is not legally correct. The Parliament was not involved in the procedure which led to adoption of the contested decision. The Parliament infers from this, consequently, infringement of the Treaties and of an essential procedural requirement.
Should the Court annul the contested decision, Parliament considers it would be desirable that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested decision, in accordance with Article 264(2) TFEU, until such time as it is replaced with a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.