Case C‑409/13

Council of the European Union

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Macro-financial assistance to third countries — Decision of the Commission to withdraw a proposal for a framework regulation — Articles 13(2) TEU and 17 TEU — Article 293 TFEU — Principle of conferral of powers — Principle of institutional balance — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 296 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 14 April 2015

1. European Union — Institutional balance — Implications — Observance of the division of powers

   (Art. 13(2) TEU)

2. Commission — Powers — Power of legislative initiative — Power to withdraw a proposal which has not yet been adopted — Conditions — Withdrawal of a proposal that has been distorted to the point of preventing achievement of its objectives — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation — No such infringement

   (Arts 13(2) TEU and 17(2) TEU; Arts 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU; Council’s Rules of Procedure, Arts 3(2) and 11(1))

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Decision of the Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal — Included

   (Arts 14(1) TEU and 16(1) TEU; Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the obligation to state reasons in the light of the circumstances of the case

   (Art. 296(2) TFEU)

5. EU law — Principles — Principle of democracy — Withdrawal by the Commission of a legislative proposal which has not yet been adopted — No infringement

   (Arts 10(1) and (2) TEU and 17(2) TEU; Arts 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU)

1.  Under Article 13(2) TEU, each EU institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. That provision reflects the principle of institutional balance, characteristic of the institutional structure of the European Union, a principle which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions.

   (see para. 64)

2.  As regards the Commission’s power of legislative initiative under the ordinary legislative procedure, it follows from Article 17(2) TEU in conjunction with Articles 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU that, just as it is, as a rule, for the Commission to decide whether or not to submit a legislative proposal and, as the case may be, to determine its subject-matter, objective and content, the Commission has the power, as long as the Council has not acted, to alter its proposal or even, if need be, withdraw it. That power of withdrawal cannot, however, confer upon that institution a right of veto in the conduct of the legislative process, a right which would be contrary to the principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance. If the Commission, after submitting a proposal under the ordinary legislative procedure, decides to withdraw that proposal, it must state to the Parliament and the Council the grounds for the withdrawal, which, in the event of challenge, have to be supported by cogent evidence or arguments.

   Where an amendment planned by the Parliament and the Council distorts the proposal for a legislative act in a manner which prevents achievement of the objectives pursued by the proposal and which, therefore, deprives it of its raison d’être, the Commission is entitled to withdraw it. It may, however, do so only after having due regard, in the spirit of sincere cooperation which, pursuant to Article 13(2) TEU, must govern relations between EU institutions in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure, to the concerns of the Parliament and the Council underlying their intention to amend its proposal. In those circumstances, neither the fact that the Commission has not made use of the power, provided for in Articles 3(2) and 11(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, to request a vote of the Council on the proposal nor the fact that the decision to withdraw the proposal has been adopted on the very day that the Parliament and the Council were on the verge of formalising their agreement on it can be regarded as amounting to a breach by the Commission of the principle of sincere cooperation.

   (see paras 74-76, 83, 106)

3.  A decision of the Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal may constitute an act against which an action for annulment may be brought given that, by bringing the legislative procedure initiated by the submission of the proposal to an end, such a decision prevents the Parliament and the Council from exercising, as they would have intended, their legislative functions under Articles 14(1) TEU and 16(1) TEU. Furthermore, the judicial review which the Court must be able to carry out if an action for annulment is brought justifies the requirement that a decision to withdraw a legislative proposal be taken in compliance with the obligation to state reasons.

   (see paras 77, 78)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 79)

5.  The withdrawal by the Commission of a legislative proposal submitted under the ordinary legislative procedure cannot be regarded as an infringement of the principle of democracy laid down in Article 10(1) and (2) TEU. It is apparent from Article 17(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU, that the Commission has the power not only to submit a legislative proposal but also, provided that the Council has not yet acted, to alter its proposal or even, if need be, withdraw it. Since that power of the Commission to withdraw a proposal is inextricably linked with its right of initiative and exercise of the power is circumscribed by the abovementioned provisions of the FEU Treaty, there can be no question of an infringement of that principle.

   (see para. 96)

Case C‑409/13

Council of the European Union

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Macro-financial assistance to third countries — Decision of the Commission to withdraw a proposal for a framework regulation — Articles 13(2) TEU and 17 TEU — Article 293 TFEU — Principle of conferral of powers — Principle of institutional balance — Principle of sincere cooperation — Article 296 TFEU — Obligation to state reasons’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 14 April 2015

1. European Union — Institutional balance — Implications — Observance of the division of powers

   (Art. 13(2) TEU)

2. Commission — Powers — Power of legislative initiative — Power to withdraw a proposal which has not yet been adopted — Conditions — Withdrawal of a proposal that has been distorted to the point of preventing achievement of its objectives — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation — No such infringement

   (Arts 13(2) TEU and 17(2) TEU; Arts 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU; Council’s Rules of Procedure, Arts 3(2) and 11(1))

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Decision of the Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal — Included

   (Arts 14(1) TEU and 16(1) TEU; Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU)

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Assessment of the obligation to state reasons in the light of the circumstances of the case

   (Art. 296(2) TFEU)

5. EU law — Principles — Principle of democracy — Withdrawal by the Commission of a legislative proposal which has not yet been adopted — No infringement

   (Arts 10(1) and (2) TEU and 17(2) TEU; Arts 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU)

1.  Under Article 13(2) TEU, each EU institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out in them. That provision reflects the principle of institutional balance, characteristic of the institutional structure of the European Union, a principle which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions.

   (see para. 64)

2.  As regards the Commission’s power of legislative initiative under the ordinary legislative procedure, it follows from Article 17(2) TEU in conjunction with Articles 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU that, just as it is, as a rule, for the Commission to decide whether or not to submit a legislative proposal and, as the case may be, to determine its subject-matter, objective and content, the Commission has the power, as long as the Council has not acted, to alter its proposal or even, if need be, withdraw it. That power of withdrawal cannot, however, confer upon that institution a right of veto in the conduct of the legislative process, a right which would be contrary to the principles of conferral of powers and institutional balance. If the Commission, after submitting a proposal under the ordinary legislative procedure, decides to withdraw that proposal, it must state to the Parliament and the Council the grounds for the withdrawal, which, in the event of challenge, have to be supported by cogent evidence or arguments.

   Where an amendment planned by the Parliament and the Council distorts the proposal for a legislative act in a manner which prevents achievement of the objectives pursued by the proposal and which, therefore, deprives it of its raison d’être, the Commission is entitled to withdraw it. It may, however, do so only after having due regard, in the spirit of sincere cooperation which, pursuant to Article 13(2) TEU, must govern relations between EU institutions in the context of the ordinary legislative procedure, to the concerns of the Parliament and the Council underlying their intention to amend its proposal. In those circumstances, neither the fact that the Commission has not made use of the power, provided for in Articles 3(2) and 11(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure, to request a vote of the Council on the proposal nor the fact that the decision to withdraw the proposal has been adopted on the very day that the Parliament and the Council were on the verge of formalising their agreement on it can be regarded as amounting to a breach by the Commission of the principle of sincere cooperation.

   (see paras 74-76, 83, 106)

3.  A decision of the Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal may constitute an act against which an action for annulment may be brought given that, by bringing the legislative procedure initiated by the submission of the proposal to an end, such a decision prevents the Parliament and the Council from exercising, as they would have intended, their legislative functions under Articles 14(1) TEU and 16(1) TEU. Furthermore, the judicial review which the Court must be able to carry out if an action for annulment is brought justifies the requirement that a decision to withdraw a legislative proposal be taken in compliance with the obligation to state reasons.

   (see paras 77, 78)

4.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 79)

5.  The withdrawal by the Commission of a legislative proposal submitted under the ordinary legislative procedure cannot be regarded as an infringement of the principle of democracy laid down in Article 10(1) and (2) TEU. It is apparent from Article 17(2) TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 289 TFEU and 293 TFEU, that the Commission has the power not only to submit a legislative proposal but also, provided that the Council has not yet acted, to alter its proposal or even, if need be, withdraw it. Since that power of the Commission to withdraw a proposal is inextricably linked with its right of initiative and exercise of the power is circumscribed by the abovementioned provisions of the FEU Treaty, there can be no question of an infringement of that principle.

   (see para. 96)