# C_2016392EN.01000802.xml

| 24.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 392/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 392/8

---

Appeal brought on 28 July 2016 by Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis v European Commission

(Case C-420/16 P)

(2016/C 392/11)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák and Attila Dabis (represented by: D. Sobor, ügyvéd)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary, Hellenic Republic, Romania and Slovak Republic

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 and, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice






  — | First, annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the contested initiative, annulment of which the applicants sought in their application, and decide the case on the merits, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 in Case T-529/13 and, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice

—

First, annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the contested initiative, annulment of which the applicants sought in their application, and decide the case on the merits, and

| — | In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings does not permit it to give final judgment, refer the case back to the General Court in order for it to rule.

| — | 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

The applicants rely on the following grounds in support of their appeal:

| 1. | First ground, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter and Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, especially with regard to the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information regarding the burden of proof, in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, before delivering its judgment, the General Court did not inform the parties to the proceedings that it considered the questions whether the implementation of the policy of cohesion of the European Union, both by the EU and by the Member States, may threaten the specific characteristics of regions with a national minority and whether the specific ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics of regions with a national minority may be considered a severe and permanent handicap within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU to be questions of fact which must be examined in the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First ground, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter and Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, especially with regard to the failure to fulfil the obligation to provide information regarding the burden of proof, in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, before delivering its judgment, the General Court did not inform the parties to the proceedings that it considered the questions whether the implementation of the policy of cohesion of the European Union, both by the EU and by the Member States, may threaten the specific characteristics of regions with a national minority and whether the specific ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics of regions with a national minority may be considered a severe and permanent handicap within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU to be questions of fact which must be examined in the proceedings.

| 2. | Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 11(4) TEU and Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation on the citizens’ initiative (1) in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings complied with Article 11(4) TEU, given that the organisers proposed it regarding a question on which they consider that a legal act of the Union is required in order to implement the Treaties, and the European Commission had competence to submit the appropriate proposal. Furthermore, the appellants assert that the Commission may refuse the registration of a proposal for a citizens’ initiative on the ground of lack of competence only where that lack of competence is manifest. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 11(4) TEU and Article 4(2)(b) of the Regulation on the citizens’ initiative (1) in so far as, in the opinion of the appellants, the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings complied with Article 11(4) TEU, given that the organisers proposed it regarding a question on which they consider that a legal act of the Union is required in order to implement the Treaties, and the European Commission had competence to submit the appropriate proposal. Furthermore, the appellants assert that the Commission may refuse the registration of a proposal for a citizens’ initiative on the ground of lack of competence only where that lack of competence is manifest.

1

| 3. | Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(c) TFEU and Article 174 TFEU, in so far as the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU lists by way of example circumstances constituting severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such that the cohesion policy of the EU must pay ‘particular attention’ to a region. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(c) TFEU and Article 174 TFEU, in so far as the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU lists by way of example circumstances constituting severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps such that the cohesion policy of the EU must pay ‘particular attention’ to a region.

| 4. | Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 7 TFEU, Article 167 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the Charter and the provisions of the Treaties relating to the prohibition of discrimination, in so far as the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings promotes the consistency of the policies and actions of the EU called for by Article 7 TFEU by calling for cultural diversity and its maintenance to be taken into account by the cohesion policy. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 7 TFEU, Article 167 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the Charter and the provisions of the Treaties relating to the prohibition of discrimination, in so far as the European citizens’ initiative which is the subject-matter of the proceedings promotes the consistency of the policies and actions of the EU called for by Article 7 TFEU by calling for cultural diversity and its maintenance to be taken into account by the cohesion policy.

---

(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).

1

---