# C_2023235EN.01004201.xml

| 3.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/42

---

Action brought on 13 March 2023 — Miskolci Egyetem v Council and Commission

(Case T-139/23)

(2023/C 235/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miskolci Egyetem (Miskolc, Hungary) (represented by: V. Łuszcz and K. Bendzsel-Varga, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Article 2, paragraph 2, of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, (1) partially, in so far as it provides ‘or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust’ and in so far as that provision of Decision 2022/2506 concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 2, paragraph 2, of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022, (1) partially, in so far as it provides ‘or any entity maintained by such a public interest trust’ and in so far as that provision of Decision 2022/2506 concerns the applicant;

| — | annul the Joint Statement of 26 January 2023 of Commissioners Hahn and Gabriel on the application of Council Implementing Decision of 15 December 2022 in relation to Hungarian public interest trusts in so far as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Joint Statement of 26 January 2023 of Commissioners Hahn and Gabriel on the application of Council Implementing Decision of 15 December 2022 in relation to Hungarian public interest trusts in so far as the applicant is concerned;

| — | annul the Commission’s communications of 20 January, 21 February and 3 March 2023, published as ‘Disclaimers’ or ‘FAQ’ on the ERASMUS+ and Horizon Europe portals, as referred to in the said Joint Statement, in so far as they concern the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s communications of 20 January, 21 February and 3 March 2023, published as ‘Disclaimers’ or ‘FAQ’ on the ERASMUS+ and Horizon Europe portals, as referred to in the said Joint Statement, in so far as they concern the applicant;

| — | annul the Commission’s act embedded in the letter of EACEA of 21 February 2023 sent to the consortium coordinator in Project Enhancing sport organisations and management, in so far as the applicant is concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission’s act embedded in the letter of EACEA of 21 February 2023 sent to the consortium coordinator in Project Enhancing sport organisations and management, in so far as the applicant is concerned;

| — | order the Council and the Commission and any intervener opposing this application to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council and the Commission and any intervener opposing this application to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 (‘the Conditionality Regulation’), (2) of the duty to provide adequate reasons, the principle of proportionality, Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018. (3)







  — | The applicant submits that the Commission and the Council (i) failed to establish the relevance of the breach to the sound financial management of the EU budget or to the protection of the EU’s financial interests and failed to establish the genuine link between the breach and the serious risk of affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the EU’s financial interests; and (ii) failed to establish the proportionality of the measure under Article 5(3) of the Conditionality Regulation. The applicant further considers that the Commission and the Council committed errors of assessment, infringed the Conditionality Regulation, and breached the duty to provide adequate reasons in this regard. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 (‘the Conditionality Regulation’), (2) of the duty to provide adequate reasons, the principle of proportionality, Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, and Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018. (3)

—

The applicant submits that the Commission and the Council (i) failed to establish the relevance of the breach to the sound financial management of the EU budget or to the protection of the EU’s financial interests and failed to establish the genuine link between the breach and the serious risk of affecting the sound financial management of the EU budget or the protection of the EU’s financial interests; and (ii) failed to establish the proportionality of the measure under Article 5(3) of the Conditionality Regulation. The applicant further considers that the Commission and the Council committed errors of assessment, infringed the Conditionality Regulation, and breached the duty to provide adequate reasons in this regard.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of presumption of innocence and breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of presumption of innocence and breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to operate on an undistorted market (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in conjunction with Articles 101-108 TFEU). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the right to operate on an undistorted market (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in conjunction with Articles 101-108 TFEU).

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and the infringement of essential procedural requirements. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and the infringement of essential procedural requirements.

In the context of its first, second and fourth pleas, the applicant also enters a plea of illegality against the Conditionality Regulation, in case that the Regulation excludes individual exemptions from the application of the contested decision.

---

(1)  Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/2506 of 15 December 2022 on measures for the protection of the Union budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law in Hungary (OJ 2022 L 325, p. 94).

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (OJ 2020 L 433I, p. 1).

(3)  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 296/2013, (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).

---