# C_2020045EN.01007601.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/76

---

Action brought on 14 November 2019 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission

(Case T-789/19)

(2020/C 45/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tom Moerenhout (Humbeek, Belgium) and six other applicants (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 6390 final of 4 September 2019 refusing to register the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’ (OJ 2019 L 241, p. 12), the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation 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) in so far as the Commission distorted the proposed citizens’ initiative; |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation 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) in so far as the Commission distorted the proposed citizens’ initiative;

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision;

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission took the view that the action envisaged by the proposed citizens’ initiative could be adopted only on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, whereas that action clearly fell within the common commercial policy; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission took the view that the action envisaged by the proposed citizens’ initiative could be adopted only on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, whereas that action clearly fell within the common commercial policy;

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission ignored other legal bases to which the ECI proposal clearly relates, namely Article 43(2) TFEU and Article 114 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission ignored other legal bases to which the ECI proposal clearly relates, namely Article 43(2) TFEU and Article 114 TFEU.

---