# C_2013226EN.01000703.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 226/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/7

---

Action brought on 7 June 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-317/13)

(2013/C 226/13)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision 2013/129/EU of 7 March 2013 on subjecting 4-methylamphetamine to control measures; (1)

1

| — | maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/129/EU until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/129/EU until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner;

| — | order Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

First of all, the Parliament points out that the preamble to the contested decision refers to the following legal bases: Article 8(3) of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (2) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament infers therefrom that the Council implicitly refers to Article 34(2)(c) of the previous Treaty on European Union.

2

The Parliament relies on two pleas in law in support of its action for annulment.

In the first place, the Parliament claims that the Council based its decision on a legal basis, Article 34(2)(c) EU, which was repealed when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Accordingly, the contested decision is no longer based solely on Decision 2005/387/JHA. The latter constitutes a secondary legal basis and is thus unlawful.

In the second place, and in the light of the foregoing, the Parliament considers that the legislative process is vitiated by infringements of essential procedural requirements. First, if Article 34(2)(c) EU had been applicable, the Parliament should have been consulted before the adoption of the contested decision in accordance with Article 39(1) EU. However, the Parliament claims that that was not the case. Secondly, if it is held that the applicable provisions are those derived from the Treaty of Lisbon, the Parliament should have been involved in the legislative procedure on the basis of Article 83(1) TFEU. In either case, since the Parliament was not involved in the adoption of the contested decision, the latter is vitiated by an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

Finally, if the Court decides to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers that it would be necessary, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, to maintain the effects of the contested decision until it is replaced by a new measure adopted in the prescribed manner.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 72, p. 11.

1

(2)  OJ 2005 L 172, p. 32.

2

---