|
15.11.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 462/27 |
Action brought on 7 September 2021 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-551/21)
(2021/C 462/32)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, B. Hofstötter, T. Ramopoulos, A. Stobiecka-Kuik, agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Article 2 of Council Decision (EU) 2021/1117 (1) of 28 June 2021 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Implementing Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the European Community (2021-2026) and the designation by the Council through its President, of the Portuguese Ambassador as the person empowered to sign the Protocol, as was done on 29 June 2021, and |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
With its first and main plea the Commission argues that the Council violated (a) the Commission’s external representation powers under Article 17 TEU in conjunction with the inter-institutional balance and the principle of institutional conferral of powers as set out in Article 13(2) TEU, as well as (b) the requirement of the unity of external representation arising from the principle of sincere cooperation between the Union and its Member States. The Commission submits first that the Council committed an error in law violating the Commission’s prerogatives by adopting Article 2 of Council Decision (EU) 2021/1117 of 28 June 2021, as amended, and by designating through its President, based on that provision, the Portuguese Ambassador as the person empowered to sign on behalf of the Union (and even to sign alone) the Implementing Protocol with Gabon, instead of the Commission. Second, the Commission submits that by doing so the Council created confusion with the external partners of the Union on which Union institution is to ensure the external representation of the Union since it designated the rotating Council Presidency in the person of the Portuguese Ambassador, and thereby provoked doubts on the legal nature of the Union’s powers in its areas of competence to enter autonomously into international agreements as a fully-fledged international legal person and not as an agency of its Member States. In doing so, the Council undermined the effectiveness, credibility and reputation of the Union on the international plane.
With its Second Plea the Commission argues that the Council violated (a) the duty to state reasons and the publicity requirement, provided in Articles 296 and 297 TFEU, and (b) the principle of sincere cooperation between institutions of Article 13(2) TEU. The Commission submits first, that the Council failed to give reasons as to why it decided to designate the Portuguese Ambassador to sign on behalf of the Union and to properly render public such decision by way of publication or notification to the Commission, and, second, that the Council failed to consult with the Commission on its intention to designate the Portuguese Ambassador to sign on behalf of the Union.