This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0135
Case C-135/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Case C-135/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Case C-135/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
OJ C 175, 10.6.2014, p. 26–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.6.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 175/26 |
Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-135/14)
2014/C 175/33
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union. (1) |
|
— |
maintain the effects of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 until the entry into force of a new regulation based on appropriate legal bases. |
|
— |
order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission seeks annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 that the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that regulation although the Commission had proposed that the act be based on sector-specific legal bases, namely Article 43(2) and Article 168(4)(b) TFEU.
It submits that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested regulation, Article 349 TFEU cannot legitimately be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU can be applied only when it involves derogation from the principle of application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the regulation at issue, without derogating from the Treaties, merely adapts secondary law to respond to the situation created by the change of the status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, as well as by the historical origins of that article.