# C_2014093EN.01002602.xml

| 29.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/26

---

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission

(Case T-44/14)

2014/C 93/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Galązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens' Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and Independence is a fundamental right!’, (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to 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), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to 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), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.

---