Case C-589/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission
Date: 2015-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, European cooperation, economic policy, financial aid, monetary policy, participatory democracy, petition, power of initiative, powers of the institutions (EU), public debt








C_2016007EN.01001201.xml










11.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 7/12





Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by Alexios Anagnostakis against the judgment delivered on 30 September 2015 by the General Court (First Chamber) in Case T-450/12 Anagnostakis v Commission
(Case C-589/15 P)
(2016/C 007/19)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Alexios Anagnostakis (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside in its entirety the judgment in Case T-450/12 on the action brought on 11 October 2012 against the European Commission for annulment of the latter’s measure of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;










—


grant the form of order sought in the abovementioned action;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 September 2012 rejecting registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;










—


order the Commission to register the abovementioned initiative in accordance with the law, and order any other measure required by law;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.



Defects in the course of the proceedings before the General Court

The judgment under appeal overlooked entirely, when assessing the action, that the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative concerned exclusively that part of the public debt which is considered ‘abhorrent’.
The view is incorrectly taken in the grounds of the judgment under appeal that the proposal concerns the entire public debt, without any other distinction or precondition.
In that respect, the judgment under appeal failed to assess the subject-matter of the case correctly.
A judgment was delivered on the basis of a misappraisal of the action’s content and of the form of order sought by it.










2.



Infringement of EU law by the General Court, misinterpretation and misapplication of the Treaties and of European legislation







(A)


Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal held that Articles 122 TFEU and 136 TFEU, relied upon in the application, are not an appropriate legal basis for any financial assistance from the European Union by establishment of a financing mechanism for Member States which are experiencing, or are threatened by, severe financing problems.
Under Article 136 TFEU as amended by European Council Decision 2011/199/EU (1) of 25 March 2011 and Articles 4(1) TFEU and 5(2) TFEU, the power of the Member States whose currency is the euro to conclude amongst themselves an agreement relating to the establishment of a stability mechanism and of financial assistance is absolute. The Commission has a particular conferred power and discretion in respect of a proposal to establish such a mechanism under Article 352 TFEU, as necessary action to attain the objectives of the Treaties, regarding stability in the Euro area.










(B)


Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that there is nothing that supports the conclusion or proves that adoption of the principle of the state of necessity would have the effect of strengthening the coordination of budgetary discipline or would come under the economic policy guidelines which the Council is empowered to set out for the purpose of the proper functioning of economic and monetary union.
On the contrary, on a correct interpretation and correct application, the measure sought, non-payment of the abhorrent debt, is designed exclusively to strengthen the budgetary discipline of the Member States and to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union (Article 136(1) TFEU).










(C)


Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal ruled out the application of Article 122 TFEU as an appropriate legal basis for adoption of the principle of the state of necessity in EU legislation.
The Commission has the power, under Article 352 TFEU, to submit a proposal to the Council to recommend either to the Member States assistance in solidarity under Article 122(1) TFEU or the financial assistance of the European Union under Article 122(2) TFEU for the Member State that is in serious difficulties for which it is not to blame.










(D)


Misinterpreting and misapplying the Treaties and EU law, the judgment under appeal held that it must be found that the Commission complied with the obligation to state reasons as regards adoption of the contested decision rejecting the request to register the proposal for a European citizens’ initiative. The reasons for rejection stated in the contested measure are insufficient and defective. They are contrary to the duty pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 to state full reasons.










(E)


Misinterpreting and misapplying EU law, the judgment under appeal maintains that, if the principle of the state of necessity exists as a rule of international law, that is not sufficient to form the basis for a legislative initiative on the part of the Commission. International law and the principles of international law constitute sources of law for the European Union. As such they are directly incorporated into and applied in EU law, without more. The Commission has a right of proposal with regard to the application of the foregoing principles of higher-ranking law, even without specific provision in the Treaties should it be considered that the latter is lacking.










(F)


Misapplying and misinterpreting the law, the judgment under appeal ordered the appellant to pay the Commission’s costs. Had the law been appraised correctly, in accordance with the foregoing, the action would have been upheld and the Commission would have been ordered to pay the relevant costs.










(1)  OJ 2011 L 91, p. 1.