Case T-529/13: Action brought on 27 September 2013 — Izsák and Dabis v European Commission
Date: 2013-09-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU regional policy, cultural heritage, economic and social cohesion, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, national minority, petition, popular culture








C_2014024EN.01002102.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/21





Action brought on 27 September 2013 — Izsák and Dabis v European Commission
(Case T-529/13)
2014/C 24/38
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicants: Balázs-Árpád Izsák (Marosvásárhely, Romania) and Attila Dabis (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: Dr J. Petneházy Tordáné, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4975 of 25 July 2013 rejecting the application for registration of the European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Cohesion policy for the equality of the regions and the preservation of regional cultures’.










—


Order the Commission to register the initiative and adopt any other measure required by law.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea(s) in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 (1)







—


By the first plea the applicants state that their citizens’ initiative fulfils all the requirements for registration. Furthermore, they reject as unfounded the Commission’s allegation that the proposed citizens’ initiative manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. According to the applicants, the initiative put forward a proposal which fell within the powers defined by Article 4(2)(c) TFEU (economic, social and territorial cohesion).














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU






—


Under this plea, the applicants allege that, contrary to the Commission’s contention, the list in the third paragraph of Article 174 TFEU of disadvantages by virtue of which particular attention is to be paid to a region is not exhaustive but given by way of example.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 174 TFEU and of Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 (2)







—


The applicants consider, moreover, that regions which have particular national, linguistic and cultural characteristics belong in any event to the category of ‘regions concerned’ indicated in Article 174 TFEU to which the European Union’s policy on cohesion is applicable, given that, under the secondary legislation of the European Union, culture is an important factor in territorial, social and economic cohesion. In their opinion, this is borne out by Article 3(5) and the tenth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1059/2003.














4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 211/2011 and of Article 167 TFEU






—


The applicants argue that the promoters of the initiative are not obliged to indicate the legal basis of the legislative initiative, as the Commission states, but, under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 211/2011, they have to indicate the provisions of the Treaty which, in the opinion of the organisers, relate to the proposed action. Moreover, under Article 167 TFEU, the European Union is to contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity.














5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 19(1) TFEU






—


According to the applicants, the Commission asserts without justification in the contested decision that, although the European Union institutions are obliged to respect cultural and linguistic diversity and not to discriminate against minorities, those provisions do not constitute a legal basis for any action on the part of the institutions. The applicants object, in particular, that the Commission’s assertion is contrary to Article 19(1) TFEU.














6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 174 TFEU






—


According to the applicants, the Commission misinterprets the initiative in stating that the boost to the situation of national minorities cannot be seen as helping to reduce disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the backwardness of the least favoured regions in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 174 TFEU. The applicants allege that the promoters of the initiative were not seeking to improve the situation of national minorities but to ensure that the cohesion policy of the European Union could not be used to eliminate or weaken the national linguistic and cultural characteristics of those regions, and that that the economic resources and objectives of the European Union could not be converted into instruments, however indirect, of policies against minorities.










(1)  Regulation (EU) 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).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) (OJ 2003 L 154, p. 1).