# C_2023083EN.01001401.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/14

---

Appeal brought on 21 January 2023 by Citizens' Committee of the European Citizens' Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 9 November 2022 in Case T-158/21, Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission

(Case C-26/23 P)

(2023/C 83/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Citizens' Committee of the European Citizens' Initiative ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (represented by: T. Hieber, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary, Hellenic Republic and Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in case T-158/21 and annul the Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in case T-158/21 and annul the Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021;

| — | or, alternatively, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in case T-158/21 and refer the case back to the General Court; |
| --- | --- |

—

or, alternatively, set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2022 in case T-158/21 and refer the case back to the General Court;

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

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | Violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter. The reassignment of the case to another rapporteur was contrary to Article 47 (2) of the Charter. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 47 (2) of the Charter. The reassignment of the case to another rapporteur was contrary to Article 47 (2) of the Charter.

| — | Violation of Article 9 TEU. The General Court disregarded that the Commission did not pay equal attention to all the European citizens’ initiatives, which were able to gather at least one million signatures and meet all the other requirements laid down in the applicable ECI Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 9 TEU. The General Court disregarded that the Commission did not pay equal attention to all the European citizens’ initiatives, which were able to gather at least one million signatures and meet all the other requirements laid down in the applicable ECI Regulation.

| — | Disregard of the competences of the European Commission. The General Court disregarded the competences of the Commission regarding the implementation of the Minority SafePack Initiative. |
| --- | --- |

—

Disregard of the competences of the European Commission. The General Court disregarded the competences of the Commission regarding the implementation of the Minority SafePack Initiative.

| — | Wrongful interpretation of the concept of ‘manifest error of assessment’. The General Court made an error of law by adding additional requirements. |
| --- | --- |

—

Wrongful interpretation of the concept of ‘manifest error of assessment’. The General Court made an error of law by adding additional requirements.

| — | Manifest error of assessment. The General Court made an error of law by rejecting the line of argument of the appellant according to which the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the measures brought forward in the contested communication to justify its refusal to adopt the proposals 1 and 3 of the Minority SafePack Initiative. |
| --- | --- |

—

Manifest error of assessment. The General Court made an error of law by rejecting the line of argument of the appellant according to which the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment regarding the measures brought forward in the contested communication to justify its refusal to adopt the proposals 1 and 3 of the Minority SafePack Initiative.

| — | Violation of the burden of proof. The General Court made an error of law as it wrongfully imposed the burden of proof to the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the burden of proof. The General Court made an error of law as it wrongfully imposed the burden of proof to the appellant.

| — | Violation of the obligation to state reasons. The General Court disregarded the scope of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the contested communication. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of the obligation to state reasons. The General Court disregarded the scope of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the contested communication.

| — | Violation of Article 36 of the Statute. The grounds provided by the General Court were contradictory and insufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

Violation of Article 36 of the Statute. The grounds provided by the General Court were contradictory and insufficient.

---