1

By its appeal, Romania seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 November 2021, Romania v Commission (T‑495/19, EU:T:2021:781; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721 of 30 April 2019 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’ (OJ 2019 L 122, p. 55; ‘the decision at issue’).

2

Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2012 L 94, p. 49) stated, in recitals 1, 2, 4 and 10 thereof:

…

…

3

Article 1 of Regulation No 211/2011 provided:

‘This Regulation establishes the procedures and conditions required for [an ECI] as provided for in Article 11 TEU and Article 24 TFEU.’

4

Under Article 2 of that regulation:

‘For the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:

…

5

Article 4(1) to (3) of that regulation provided:

‘1.   Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed [ECI], the organisers shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject matter and objectives of the proposed [ECI].

…

2.   Within two months from the receipt of the information set out in Annex II, the Commission shall register a proposed [ECI] under a unique registration number and send a confirmation to the organisers, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:

…

…

3.   The Commission shall refuse the registration if the conditions laid down in paragraph 2 are not met.

Where it refuses to register a proposed [ECI], the Commission shall inform the organisers of the reasons for such refusal and of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them.’

6

Annex II to that regulation, on required information for registering a proposed ECI, required that a range of information be provided in order to register such a proposal, namely the title thereof, its subject matter, a description of its objectives on which the Commission was invited to act, and the provisions of the Treaties considered relevant by the organisers for the proposed action. That annex provided, moreover, that the organisers could provide more detailed information on the subject, objectives and background to the proposal.

7

Regulation No 211/2011 was repealed, with effect from 1 January 2020, by Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative (OJ 2019 L 130, p. 55).

8

The background to the dispute, as set out in the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as follows.

9

On 18 June 2013, the proposed ECI entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and sustainability of the regional cultures’ (‘the proposed ECI at issue’) was submitted to the Commission.

10

By its decision C(2013) 4975 final of 25 July 2013, the Commission refused to register the proposed ECI at issue on the ground that that ECI fell manifestly outside the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purposes of implementing the Treaties, within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.

11

By judgment of 10 May 2016, Izsák and Dabis v Commission (T‑529/13, EU:T:2016:282), the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought against that decision.

12

On appeal, the Court of Justice, by judgment of 7 March 2019, Izsák and Dabis v Commission (C‑420/16 P, EU:C:2019:177), set aside that judgment of the General Court and, giving final judgment in the dispute itself, annulled Decision C(2013) 4975 final.

13

In particular, in paragraphs 61 and 62 of that judgment, the Court of Justice ruled that, for the purpose of assessing whether the condition of registration in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 is satisfied, the question whether the measure proposed in the context of an ECI falls within the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, within the meaning of that provision, is prima facie not a question of fact or of the assessment of evidence subject as such to the rules on the burden of proof, but essentially a question of the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Treaties. As a consequence, it is not for that institution to ascertain, at that stage, that proof has been provided of all the factual elements relied on, or that the reasoning behind the proposal and the measures proposed is adequate, but to examine whether, from an objective point of view, such measures envisaged in the abstract could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties.

14

On 30 April 2019, the Commission adopted the decision at issue, by which the proposed ECI at issue was registered to the extent specified in Article 1(2) of that decision.

15

In recitals 1 and 2 of the contested decision, the Commission identified the subject matter and objectives of the proposed ECI at issue, as these appeared from the information provided by the organisers.

16

Thus, according to those recitals, that proposal aimed to ensure that the European Union as a whole, through the cohesion policy, will pay special attention to regions with ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics that are different from those of the surrounding regions. For those regions, including geographic areas with no administrative competencies, the prevention of any gap or lag in economic development as compared with the surrounding regions, the sustainment of economic development and the preservation of the conditions for economic, social and territorial cohesion needed to be achieved in a way that ensures their characteristics remain unchanged. For that purpose, those regions required equal opportunities in terms of access to various EU funds and the preservation of their characteristics and their proper economic development needed to be guaranteed, so that the development of the European Union could be sustained and its cultural diversity maintained.

17

In recitals 3 and 4 of the decision at issue, the Commission stated that, in order to encourage EU citizens to use the ECI mechanism and, ultimately, to participate in the democratic life of the European Union, the procedures and conditions required for the ECI must be clear, simple, user-friendly and proportionate to the nature of the ECI.

18

In recital 5 of the decision at issue, the Commission stated:

‘Legal acts of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties can be adopted in defining the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds which may involve grouping the Funds, in accordance with Article 177 [TFEU].’

19

In recital 6 of the decision at issue, the Commission stated that the proposed ECI at issue, ‘inasmuch as it aim[ed] at proposals from the Commission for legal acts setting out the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds and provided that the actions to be financed [led] to the strengthening of the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union’ did not manifestly fall outside the framework of its powers within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.

20

Article 1 of the decision at issue provides:

‘1.   The proposed [ECI at issue] is hereby registered.

2.   Statements of support for this proposed [ECI] may be collected, based on the understanding that it aims at proposals from the Commission for legal acts setting out the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds and provided that the actions to be financed lead to the strengthening of the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union.’

21

By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 8 July 2019, Romania brought an action for annulment of the decision at issue.

22

By document lodged at the Court Registry on 8 October 2019, Hungary applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

23

In support of its action, Romania raised two pleas in law, the first alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, the second alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

24

By the judgment under appeal, the General Court held, first, that the action was admissible, by finding that the decision at issue constituted an act open to challenge, within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.

25

Next, it held that, in that decision, the Commission had set out, to the requisite legal standard, the reasons justifying the registration of the proposed ECI at issue.

26

Lastly, the General Court held, in essence that the Commission had not made an error of assessment in concluding, at the registration stage, that the proposed ECI at issue did not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

27

Consequently, the General Court dismissed the action as unfounded.

28

Romania claims that the Court should:

29

The Commission and Hungary contend that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order Romania to pay the costs.

30

In support of its appeal, Romania relies on a single ground, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, read in conjunction with Article 5(2) TEU. That ground of appeal may be divided into two parts, each alleging misinterpretation of that provision in so far as concerns the discretion that the Commission has in order to determine whether a proposed ECI should be registered.

31

By the first part of its single ground of appeal, which comprises two complaints, Romania submits that the General Court misinterpreted one of the conditions that a proposed ECI must satisfy in order to be registered by the Commission, namely that set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011. It argues that, in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the criteria on the basis of which the Commission is to assess whether a proposed ECI satisfies that condition.

32

By its first complaint, Romania takes issue with the General Court for wrongly ruling, in paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission can refuse to register a proposed ECI only where it concludes, from the examination that it has conducted pursuant to that provision, that it can be completely ruled out that the Commission could submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

33

It is submitted that it follows from paragraphs 61 and 62 of the judgment of 7 March 2019, Izsák and Dabis v Commission (C‑420/16 P, EU:C:2019:177), that the Commission must confine itself to examining, for the purpose of assessing whether the condition for registration laid down in that provision is satisfied, whether from an objective point of view the proposed measures envisaged in the abstract could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties. Furthermore, according to that case-law, in the context of that examination, the Commission should refer to the subject matter and objectives of the proposed ECI as these appear in the mandatory and, where appropriate, additional information that has been provided by the organisers pursuant to Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011. It follows, in the appellant’s submission, that the Commission has limited discretion in the context of the examination which it must conduct pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, with the result that that examination must be conducted solely in the light of the subject matter, objectives and the provisions of the Treaties to which the organisers refer in the proposed ECI.

34

According to Romania, in paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court disregarded the scope of that examination and, therefore, of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation, by implicitly requiring that the Commission examine a proposed ECI in the light of all the provisions of the Treaties, including those to which the organisers have not made express reference in the information that they have provided. Such an examination is not a simple examination in the abstract of the proposed ECI and, what is more, creates confusion between the various stages of an ECI.

35

By its second complaint, Romania takes issue with the General Court for finding, in paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal, that, even where the Commission has strong doubts as to whether the proposed ECI at issue falls within the framework of its powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, the Commission must register that proposal in order to begin the debate on policy within the institutions.

36

In that connection, Romania submits that the judgment of 19 December 2019, Puppinck and Others v Commission (C‑418/18 P, EU:C:2019:1113), on which the General Court relied in that context, is irrelevant, given that, in the case which gave rise to that judgment, the Court was called upon to rule on the effects of a registration and, in particular, on the question whether the Commission was required to propose measures in the wake of the ECI at issue in that case.

37

In any event, the General Court’s interpretation in paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal could, following the registration of a proposed ECI, trigger debates on the proposed acts which, in reality, do not fall within the scope of the competence of the European Union. It is submitted that such an interpretation – which, in practice, defers any examination of observance of the scope of the European Union’s powers to the subsequent stage laid down in Article 10 of Regulation No 211/2011 – strips the registration stage of any effectiveness.

38

The Commission and Hungary contend that the first part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded. In the Commission’s submission, that part is ineffective in any event.

39

As a preliminary point, as regards the principles governing the process for registering a proposed ECI, it should be observed that, under Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, the Commission is to register a proposed ECI provided that it ‘does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’.

40

In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, that condition for registration must, in accordance with the objectives pursued by the ECI, as set out in recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 211/2011 and consisting inter alia in encouraging participation by citizens in the democratic life of the European Union and making the European Union more accessible, be interpreted and applied by the Commission, when it receives a proposed ECI, in such a way as to ensure easy accessibility to ECIs (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 September 2017, Anagnostakis v Commission, C‑589/15 P, EU:C:2017:663, paragraph 49; of 7 March 2019, Izsák and Dabis v Commission, C‑420/16 P, EU:C:2019:177, paragraph 53; and of 20 January 2022, Romania v Commission, C‑899/19 P, EU:C:2022:41, paragraph 44).

41

Accordingly, it is only if a proposed ECI, in view of its subject matter and objectives as reflected in the mandatory and, where appropriate, additional information that has been provided by the organisers pursuant to Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011, manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties that the Commission is entitled to refuse to register the proposed ECI pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of that regulation (judgments of 12 September 2017, Anagnostakis v Commission, C‑589/15 P, EU:C:2017:663, paragraph 50, and of 7 March 2019, Izsák and Dabis v Commission, C‑420/16 P, EU:C:2019:177, paragraph 54).

42

Furthermore, it is also clear from the case-law of the Court that the Commission must confine itself to examining, for the purposes of assessing whether the condition for registration laid down in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 is satisfied, whether from an objective point of view the measures in a proposed ECI, envisaged in the abstract, could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties (judgment of 20 January 2022, Romania v Commission, C‑899/19 P, EU:C:2022:41, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

43

Accordingly, where, following an initial analysis carried out in the light of the mandatory and, where appropriate, additional information provided by the organisers, it is not established that a proposed ECI manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers, it is for that institution to register that proposed ECI, provided that the other conditions set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 211/2011 are satisfied (judgment of 20 January 2022, Romania v Commission, C‑899/19 P, EU:C:2022:41, paragraph 47).

44

It is in the light of those considerations that the first part of Romania’s single ground of appeal, by which the latter takes issue with the General Court, in essence, for having misinterpreted Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 when, in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the judgment under appeal, it clarified the scope of the Commission’s discretion in determining whether a proposed ECI should be registered, must be examined.

45

The first complaint in that first part is directed against paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court essentially held that the Commission may refuse to register a proposed ECI only if, in carrying out the examination under Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, it concludes that it can be completely ruled out that the Commission could submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

46

That Member State criticises the General Court for finding that, in the context of such an examination, the Commission can refuse to register a proposed ECI only where it concludes that ‘it can be completely ruled out’ that that proposal is of such a nature as to allow the Commission to submit such a proposal for a legal act.

47

In that connection, it should be observed that that paragraph constitutes the conclusion of paragraphs 100 to 104 of that judgment, which paragraphs Romania has not criticised in the context of the present appeal. Thus, in that concluding paragraph, the General Court sought only to summarise the case-law of the Court of Justice and the scope of the relevant provisions of Regulation No 211/2011 in the light of the examination to be conducted by the Commission under Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, which the General Court recalled in paragraphs 100 to 104.

48

However, while, in paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court employed terms or wordings other than those it used in paragraphs 100 to 104 of that judgment, the fact remains that it cannot be inferred from the wording of paragraph 105 that the General Court introduced a condition for registration of a proposed ECI that is in contradiction with the factors that it set out in paragraphs 100 to 104 of that judgment or with the conditions recalled in paragraphs 39 to 43 of the present judgment.

49

In particular, contrary to Romania’s arguments, paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal cannot be read as meaning that the General Court referred to an obligation, incumbent on the Commission, to examine whether the proposed ECI submitted to it may have a basis in any one of the Treaty provisions, including in those to which the organisers did not make express reference.

50

In any event, it is clear from paragraph 110 of the judgment under appeal – which has not been challenged in the context of the present appeal – that, in the present case, Article 177 TFEU, identified by the Commission in recital 5 of the decision at issue as being the potential legal basis of any legal acts as may be adopted by the European Union, was amongst the provisions to which the organisers referred in the proposed ECI at issue. The Commission therefore did not justify the registration of that proposal in the light of a Treaty provision other than those referred to in that proposal.

51

It follows that the complaint directed against paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal must be rejected as unfounded.

52

The second complaint is directed against paragraph 106 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court stated, in essence, that, since the particular added value of the ECI mechanism resides not in certainty of outcome but in the possibilities and opportunities that ECIs create for EU citizens to initiate debate on policy within the EU institutions, the Commission, even in the face of strong doubts as to whether the proposed ECI at issue falls within the framework of its powers within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, must register that proposal in order to enable the debate on policy within the institutions, which is triggered as a result of that registration.

53

That complaint must be declared ineffective, since it is clear from that paragraph that it seeks solely to support the General Court’s finding in paragraph 105 of that judgment, with the effect that the grounds set out in paragraph 106 are set out only for the sake of completeness in comparison with those contained in paragraph 105, which have been unsuccessfully challenged by Romania in the context of the first complaint, as follows from paragraphs 47 to 51 of the present judgment (see by analogy, judgment of 17 September 2020, Troszczynski v Parliament, C‑12/19 P, EU:C:2020:725, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).

54

In the light of the foregoing, the first part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as in part unfounded and in part ineffective.

55

By the second part of its single ground of appeal, Romania takes issue with the General Court, in essence, for finding, in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission could, pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, ‘frame’, ‘qualify’ or even partially register the proposed ECI at issue in order to ensure that it is easily accessible, provided that it complies with the obligation to state reasons incumbent on it, and that the content of the proposal is not distorted.

56

Consequently, the General Court, using generic terms, declined, as did the Commission, to examine in the light of all of the information supplied by the organisers whether the proposed ECI could be registered. In Romania’s submission, the taking into account of all of the information provided would necessarily have led to the finding that an action brought under Articles 174 to 178 TFEU did not make it possible to achieve the specific objectives of the proposed ECI at issue without giving rise to an infringement of Article 5(2) TEU. The legal bases examined by the General Court in the judgment under appeal are irrelevant in the light of the actual objective of the proposed ECI at issue, precisely because the General Court infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation No 211/2011 on account of the fact that it failed to find that regard should be had to all of the information provided by the organisers, thereby disregarding the case-law of the Court of Justice.

57

In any event, the generic argument as to the need to ensure easy accessibility to ECIs cannot alone serve as the basis for the registration of a proposed ECI which fails to satisfy all of the conditions set out in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 211/2011.

58

The Commission and Hungary contend that the second part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.

59

The second part of the single ground of appeal raised by Romania is directed against paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, in which the General Court states the following:

‘… the Commission’s approach of registering the proposed ECI at issue “based on the understanding that it aims at proposals from the Commission for legal acts setting out the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds provided that the actions to be financed lead to the strengthening of the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union” is consistent with Regulation No 211/2011, as interpreted by the Court of Justice … in that, as already noted, the Commission must interpret and apply the condition for registration laid down in Article 4(2)(b) of the abovementioned regulation in such a way as to ensure easy accessibility to ECIs. The Commission may therefore, if necessary, “frame”, “qualify” or even partially register the proposed ECI at issue in order to ensure that it is easily accessible, provided that it complies with the obligation to state reasons incumbent on it, and that the content of the proposal is not distorted. That approach allows the Commission – instead of refusing to register a proposed ECI – to register it in a qualified manner, in order to preserve the effectiveness of the objective pursued by Regulation No 211/2011. …’

60

Romania submits, in essence, that the General Court infringed Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in that it found that the Commission was entitled to ‘frame’, ‘qualify’ or even ‘partially register’ the proposed ECI at issue and, accordingly, register that proposal by conferring thereon the scope described in Article 1(2) of the decision at issue and recalled in paragraph 20 of the present judgment.

61

First of all, in order to examine that complaint, it should be observed, as the Advocate General does in points 63 to 68 of his Opinion, that, by the phrases ‘frame’, ‘qualify’ and ‘partially register’ in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court’s intention was to refer to one and the same concept, namely the partial registration of a proposed ECI, not reproducing in full the proposed ECI initially lodged by the organisers, the scope of which was, as a result, restricted, be it in the light of the specific proposed legal acts as it may contain or, as in the present case, in the light of the identification of legal acts the adoption of which is proposed or, more generally, the way in which the aim of the proposed ECI is defined.

62

Next, it should be noted that Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 does not expressly provide for the possibility, for the Commission, to proceed with such a partial registration of a proposed ECI.

63

The fact remains that, in accordance with settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 22 December 2022, Sambre & Biesme and Commune de Farciennes, C‑383/21 and C‑384/21, EU:C:2022:1022, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).

64

In that connection, as has been recalled in paragraph 40 of the present judgment, it is clear from the settled case-law of the Court that the condition for registration set out in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 must, in accordance with the objectives pursued by the ECI, as set out in recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 211/2011 and consisting inter alia in encouraging participation by citizens in the democratic life of the European Union and making the European Union more accessible, be interpreted and applied by the Commission, when it receives a proposed ECI, in such a way as to ensure easy accessibility to ECIs.

65

As the Advocate General observes in points 80 to 94 of his Opinion, those objectives support an interpretation of that provision whereby the Commission must be able to proceed with partial registration of a proposed ECI.

66

As the General Court rightly held in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, the consequence of denying the Commission that option would be that the registration of a proposed ECI would, in principle, be refused in its entirety even in the case where only part of the proposal manifestly falls outside the framework of that institution’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union, within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011. Thus, on account, hypothetically speaking, of a minimal error on the part of the organisers as to the scope of those powers, their proposed ECI would have to be rejected in its entirety, which would, in that way, manifestly undermine the objective of ensuring easy accessibility to ECIs.

67

It follows that the General Court did not err when it held, in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission could, by way of the decision at issue, proceed with partial registration of the proposed ECI at issue, by circumscribing the scope of that proposal in accordance with the wording of Article 1(2) of that decision.

68

Finally, as regards the complaint that the General Court failed, as did the Commission, to examine the registration of the proposed ECI in the light of all of the information provided by the organisers, it is sufficient to observe that, in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal – the only paragraph against which the present part of the single ground of appeal is directed – the General Court ruled solely on the conformity of a partial registration of the proposed ECI at issue with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and not on the question whether, in the light of the information provided by the organisers, that proposal, where applicable as qualified by the Commission, manifestly fell outside the framework of that institution’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the European Union.

69

Consequently, the second part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.

70

In the light of the foregoing, the single ground of appeal must be rejected as in part ineffective and in part unfounded and, accordingly, the present appeal dismissed in its entirety.

71

Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.

72

Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

73

Since Romania has been unsuccessful and the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against it, Romania must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

74

Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure, where an intervener at first instance takes part in the appeal proceedings, the Court may decide that he shall bear his own costs.

75

Since Hungary took part in the proceedings before the Court, it is appropriate in the circumstances of this case to order Hungary to bear its own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby: