Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2004/273/47

Case C-414/04: Action brought on 27 September 2004 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

IO C 273, 6.11.2004, p. 26–26 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.11.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/26

Action brought on 27 September 2004 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-414/04)

(2004/C 273/47)

An action against the against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 September 2004 by the European Parliament, represented by A. Baas and U. Rösslein, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

—

annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1223/2004 of 28 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date of application of certain provisions to Slovenia (1);

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Article 57 of the 2003 Act of Accession is not the appropriate legal basis for the adoption of the contested regulation. The purpose of that provision is to adapt the Community legislation to the accession and to make Community acts which have not been adapted by the act of accession itself applicable to the new Member States. Accordingly, other amendments cannot be based on Article 57 of the Act. That provision cannot be used to introduce derogations from Community acts.

The disputed regulation does not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, since the use of Article 57 of the 2003 Act of Accession as a legal basis is not sufficiently clear from the recitals and other provisions of that regulation.

(1)  OJ L 233 of 2.7.2004, p. 3.

Top