# C_2014052EN.01003101.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/31

---

Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-679/13)

2014/C 52/56

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures; (1)

1

| — | maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/496/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in the prescribed manner; |
| --- | --- |

—

maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/496/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Parliament notes 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 concludes that the Council refers implicitly to Article 34(2)(c) of the former Treaty of the European Union.

2

The Parliament puts forward two pleas in support of its action for annulment.

First, the Parliament claims that the Council bases its decision on a legal basis [Article 34(2)(c) UE] which has been repealed since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, the contested decision can no longer be based solely on Decision 2005/387/JHA. The latter is a secondary legal basis and is therefore illegal.

Secondly, and in view of the above, the Parliament considers that the decision-making process suffers from infringements of essential procedural requirements. On the one hand, 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 contends that that was not the case. On the other hand, given that the provisions to be applied are those resulting from the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament contends it should have been involved in the legislative procedure in any event. The Parliament argues, indeed, that if subjecting the 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures is an essential element of Decision 2005/387/JHA, the legislative procedure would be that described in Article 83(1) TFEU, namely the ordinary legislative procedure. Alternatively, if Decision 2013/496/EU is considered to be a uniform requirement for the implementation of Decision 2005/387/JHA or as a measure supplementing or modifying a non-essential element of that decision, the procedure to follow would be that provided for in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU for the adoption of implementing acts or delegated acts. In any event, as the Parliament was not involved in the adoption of the contested decision, it suffers from an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.

Finally, in the event that the Court decides to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers it appropriate, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, to maintain the effects of the contested decision, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.

---

(1)  OJ 2013 L 272, p. 44.

1

(2)  OJ 2005 L 127, p. 32.

2

---