# C_2014409EN.01004501.xml

| 17.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 409/45 |
| ---------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 July 2014 — One of Us and Others v Parlement and Others

(Case T-561/14)

2014/C 409/65

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Citizens’ Initiative One of Us and Others (represented by: C. de La Hougue, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Communication COM (2014) 355 final; |
| - | ---------------------------------------------------- |

| — | in the alternative, annul of Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | order the defendants to pay the applicant’s costs of this procedure. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s reply to the applicants’ legislative proposal and to the issues raised by the applicants in the citizens’ initiative ‘One of us’ is unsatisfactory as the Commission i) does not respond to the fact that the human embryo is a human being and ii) does not address obvious contradictions. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging violation of the democratic process as the Commission:
—
does not provide legal reasons for its refusal to transmit the applicants’ proposal to the Parliament; —
misunderstands the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011( 1 ) and maintains a monopoly of the legislative process contrary to the provisions of the Treaties on the institutional dialogue; —
does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation No 211/2011. | — | does not provide legal reasons for its refusal to transmit the applicants’ proposal to the Parliament; | — | misunderstands the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011( 1 ) and maintains a monopoly of the legislative process contrary to the provisions of the Treaties on the institutional dialogue; | — | does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation No 211/2011. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | does not provide legal reasons for its refusal to transmit the applicants’ proposal to the Parliament; | | | | | | |
| — | misunderstands the requirements of Regulation No 211/2011( 1 ) and maintains a monopoly of the legislative process contrary to the provisions of the Treaties on the institutional dialogue; | | | | | | |
| — | does not set out its legal and political conclusions separately as required by Regulation No 211/2011. | | | | | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging non-conformity of Regulation No 211/2011 with the Treaties. The applicants allege that:
—
the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the institutions’ democratic legitimacy and to encourage the participation of European citizens in the democratic process are countered if a citizens’ initiative can be dismissed by the Commission for subjective or arbitrary reasons without being examined by the Parliament; —
the rule of law is infringed if the Commission’s decision is not subject to legal review. | — | the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the institutions’ democratic legitimacy and to encourage the participation of European citizens in the democratic process are countered if a citizens’ initiative can be dismissed by the Commission for subjective or arbitrary reasons without being examined by the Parliament; | — | the rule of law is infringed if the Commission’s decision is not subject to legal review. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | the objectives of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the institutions’ democratic legitimacy and to encourage the participation of European citizens in the democratic process are countered if a citizens’ initiative can be dismissed by the Commission for subjective or arbitrary reasons without being examined by the Parliament; | | | | |
| — | the rule of law is infringed if the Commission’s decision is not subject to legal review. | | | | |

---

( 1 )  Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).

---