# C_2020054EN.01005101.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/51

---

Action brought on 21 October 2019 – Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case T-715/19)

(2020/C 54/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lukáš Wagenknecht (Pardubice, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Dolejská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the European Council unlawfully failed to act against the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš, the Czech Prime Minister, in relation to the EU budget. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the European Council unlawfully failed to act against the conflict of interest of Mr. Andrej Babiš, the Czech Prime Minister, in relation to the EU budget.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the applicant sent to the European Council an invitation to act by a letter of 5 June 2019 and sent on 10 June 2019 to the European Council a call to act under Article 265 TFEU, requesting it not to invite Mr Andrej Babiš, in alleged conflict of interest, to the meeting of the European Council of 20 June 2019 where the EU budget was discussed under point 4 of the agenda.






  — | The applicant observes that, nevertheless, on 20 June 2019, the Czech prime minister, Mr Babiš, in alleged conflict of interest, was present at the European Council meeting where the EU budget was discussed under point 4 of the agenda. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant sent to the European Council an invitation to act by a letter of 5 June 2019 and sent on 10 June 2019 to the European Council a call to act under Article 265 TFEU, requesting it not to invite Mr Andrej Babiš, in alleged conflict of interest, to the meeting of the European Council of 20 June 2019 where the EU budget was discussed under point 4 of the agenda.

—

The applicant observes that, nevertheless, on 20 June 2019, the Czech prime minister, Mr Babiš, in alleged conflict of interest, was present at the European Council meeting where the EU budget was discussed under point 4 of the agenda.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the European Council’s reply to the applicant’s invitation to act was inconclusive and contradictory, failing to define its position. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the European Council’s reply to the applicant’s invitation to act was inconclusive and contradictory, failing to define its position.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant is directly concerned by the European Council’s failure to exclude Mr Babiš from deliberations on the future EU budget in the meetings of the European Council, since:






  i. | no other intermediary act is necessary in order to exclude persons with a conflict of interest from the European Council meeting; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant is directly concerned by the European Council’s failure to exclude Mr Babiš from deliberations on the future EU budget in the meetings of the European Council, since:

i.

no other intermediary act is necessary in order to exclude persons with a conflict of interest from the European Council meeting; and

| ii. | the legal situation of the applicant is affected due to him being: (a) an elected representative of the Czech Senate, charged with investigation of the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister as a member of a special Senate Committee established for this purpose, and (b) a future competitor to candidates of the ANO 2011 party controlled by the Czech prime minister. |
| --- | --- |

ii.

the legal situation of the applicant is affected due to him being: (a) an elected representative of the Czech Senate, charged with investigation of the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister as a member of a special Senate Committee established for this purpose, and (b) a future competitor to candidates of the ANO 2011 party controlled by the Czech prime minister.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s individual concern in relation to the alleged omission of the European Council to act against the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Babiš, arises from:






  i. | a constitutional duty to control the correct adoption of EU legal acts, including the EU budget (the Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027); |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s individual concern in relation to the alleged omission of the European Council to act against the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech Prime Minister, Mr. Babiš, arises from:

i.

a constitutional duty to control the correct adoption of EU legal acts, including the EU budget (the Multiannual financial framework 2021-2027);

| ii. | a constitutional duty entailing the right to control the Czech prime minister when acting in the European Council, including the duty to exercise responsibly the function of the member of the special committee of the Senate charged with the investigation of alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister, Mr. Babiš; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

a constitutional duty entailing the right to control the Czech prime minister when acting in the European Council, including the duty to exercise responsibly the function of the member of the special committee of the Senate charged with the investigation of alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister, Mr. Babiš;

| iii. | the applicant’s election to the Czech Senate in 2018, in competition with candidates of ANO 2011 controlled by the Czech prime minister.
  The applicant alleges that refusal by the Court to accept the present case would equal a denial of justice, leading to an effective impossibility for the members of national parliaments to control their members of government in relation to acts performed in the European Council or the Council. |
| --- | --- |

iii.

the applicant’s election to the Czech Senate in 2018, in competition with candidates of ANO 2011 controlled by the Czech prime minister.

The applicant alleges that refusal by the Court to accept the present case would equal a denial of justice, leading to an effective impossibility for the members of national parliaments to control their members of government in relation to acts performed in the European Council or the Council.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is an obligation on the European Council to act against conflict of interest under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation. (1)







  — | The applicant argues that all conditions triggering the European Council’s obligation to act, that is, to prevent or neutralise the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister, Mr. Babiš, have been fullfiled. |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that there is an obligation on the European Council to act against conflict of interest under Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation. (1)

—

The applicant argues that all conditions triggering the European Council’s obligation to act, that is, to prevent or neutralise the alleged conflict of interest of the Czech prime minister, Mr. Babiš, have been fullfiled.

| 6. | Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the European Council’s obligation to act pursuant to Article 325(1) TFEU and the said Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging violation of the European Council’s obligation to act pursuant to Article 325(1) TFEU and the said Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).

---