Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0133

Case C-133/14: Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union

OJ C 175, 10.6.2014, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)



Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/25

Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-133/14)

2014/C 175/31

Language of the case: French


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Annul Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Council Directives 91/271/EEC and 1999/74/EC, and Directives 2000/60/EC, 2006/7/EC, 2006/25/EC and 2011/24/EU 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 Directive 2013/64/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/64/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.

The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Articles 43(2), 114, 153(2), 168 and 192(1) TFEU.

It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in 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, and by the historical origins of that article.

(1)  OJ 2013 L 355, p. 8.