This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/094/73
Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union Case C-122/04
Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union Case C-122/04
Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union Case C-122/04
Ú. v. EÚ C 94, 17.4.2004, p. 32–32
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
|
17.4.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 94/32 |
Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
Case C-122/04
(2004/C 94/73)
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C.-F. Durand and M. van Beek, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (1), in so far as it makes the adoption of implementing measures for the Forest Focus programme subject to the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (2); |
|
— |
maintain the effects of the above regulation until its amendment, which should be carried out as soon as possible after the judgment of the Court; |
|
— |
order the defendants to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested provision is in contravention of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC, the second comitology decision, which sets out the criteria governing the choice of one or other type of committee (management, regulatory or advisory), with a view to achieving greater consistency and predictability. The criteria laid down by that provision have not been observed in this case. Unless it can be shown that the implementing measures envisaged are not management measures for a programme, only the management procedure or, if appropriate, the advisory procedure are generally applicable for the implementation of Community programmes.
In this case, the implementing measures to be taken pursuant to the Forest Focus regulation are management measures for an action programme with only limited budgetary implications. On that ground, the Community legislature's choice was confined to either a management committee or an advisory committee, to the exclusion of a regulatory committee. The contested provision makes the adoption of implementing measures for the Forest Focus programme subject to the regulatory procedure. Where the legislature derogates from the typology prescribed by Article 2 of the second comitology decision, it must include in the act a statement of reasons which, first, is accurate and consistent with the facts of the case and, second, adequately explains the particular reasons why it is appropriate to depart from the fixed criteria. The European Parliament and the Council have not fulfilled their obligations to identify the specific features of the present case and to explain the particular reasons justifying the need to use the regulatory procedure.
(1) OJ L 324, p.1.
(2) OJ L 184, p. 23, decision laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.