# C_2014431EN.01004201.xml

| 1.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/42

---

Action brought on 13 October 2014 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-721/14)

(2014/C 431/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral under Article 5 TEU by not referring to the substantive legal basis in the Treaties that confer on the Commission the competence to adopt the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral under Article 5 TEU by not referring to the substantive legal basis in the Treaties that confer on the Commission the competence to adopt the contested measure.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral, given that the Treaties do not confer on the Commission the competence to adopt an instrument with harmonising effect in the games of chance sector. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of conferral, given that the Treaties do not confer on the Commission the competence to adopt an instrument with harmonising effect in the games of chance sector.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU due to the Commission’s disregard of the Conclusions of the Council of 10 December 2010‘Framework for gambling and betting in the EU member states’ (Document 16884/10). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of institutional balance under Article 13(2) TEU due to the Commission’s disregard of the Conclusions of the Council of 10 December 2010‘Framework for gambling and betting in the EU member states’ (Document 16884/10).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU in respect of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of cooperation in good faith under Article 4(3) TEU in respect of the Member States.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 13(2) TEU and 288 and 288 TFEU, given that the contested instrument constitutes de facto a hidden directive. The applicant also claims an infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because the Commission did not implement in accordance with law a limitation on the freedom of expression and information as laid down in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 13(2) TEU and 288 and 288 TFEU, given that the contested instrument constitutes de facto a hidden directive. The applicant also claims an infringement of Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union because the Commission did not implement in accordance with law a limitation on the freedom of expression and information as laid down in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

de facto

---