# C_2016027EN.01006201.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/62

---

Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission

(Case T-595/15)

(2016/C 027/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. (Much, Germany) and Horst Giesen (Much) (represented by: P. Brockmann, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission’s decision not to take action of 17 August 2015, notified on 24 August 2015,
  on the creation of a European law on associations in the form of a no longer published draft law or of a version of that draft law amended under the authorised framework, which gives equal treatment to cross-border activities for altruistic aims and profit-making associations, in the alternative,
  on the harmonisation of the national laws concerning associations and bodies with cross-border activities for altruistic aims; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s decision not to take action of 17 August 2015, notified on 24 August 2015,

on the creation of a European law on associations in the form of a no longer published draft law or of a version of that draft law amended under the authorised framework, which gives equal treatment to cross-border activities for altruistic aims and profit-making associations, in the alternative,

on the harmonisation of the national laws concerning associations and bodies with cross-border activities for altruistic aims;

| — | thereby placing the European Commission in a situation whereby it is legally compliant for the purposes of Article 266 TFEU by ordering it to refrain from continuing to prevent or hinder the establishment of the detrimental situation described in the two preceding paragraphs and |
| --- | --- |

—

thereby placing the European Commission in a situation whereby it is legally compliant for the purposes of Article 266 TFEU by ordering it to refrain from continuing to prevent or hinder the establishment of the detrimental situation described in the two preceding paragraphs and

| — | order the Commission and any potential interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission and any potential interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the decision to abandon the creation of a European law on associations and to address the current discrimination and interference with the collective and individual freedom of association.

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

| 1. | First plea in law: infringement of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), general principles of law within the meaning of Article 6(3) of TEU and Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Fundamental Rights |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law: infringement of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), general principles of law within the meaning of Article 6(3) of TEU and Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Fundamental Rights

| 2. | Second plea in law: infringement of the right to equality before the law (Article 20 of the Charter and Article 14 of the ECHR) to the detriment of altruistic values and associations with altruistic aims |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law: infringement of the right to equality before the law (Article 20 of the Charter and Article 14 of the ECHR) to the detriment of altruistic values and associations with altruistic aims

| 3. | Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons in Article 41 of the Charter |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons in Article 41 of the Charter

| 4. | Fourth plea in law: limitation of the scope of fundamental rights by failing to act, an unlawful interpretation of the law, under Articles 52 and 54 of the Charter |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law: limitation of the scope of fundamental rights by failing to act, an unlawful interpretation of the law, under Articles 52 and 54 of the Charter

---