Case T-66/19: Action brought on 4 February 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaams Gewest v Parliament and Council
Date: 2019-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, administrative formalities, administrative procedure, cross-frontier data flow, equal treatment, linguistic discrimination, national identity, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, use of languages








C_2019122EN.01002201.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/22






Action brought on 4 February 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaams Gewest v Parliament and Council
(Case T-66/19)
(2019/C 122/25)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaams Gewest (represented by: T. Eyskens, N. Nonbled and P. Geysens, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


declare the action admissible and well founded;










—


annul Regulation (EU) 2018/1724;










—


order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2) TEU.
The language obligations imposed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (1) are contrary to domestic language legislation in the field of administrative matters, as constitutionally protected in Belgium. That domestic language regime forms part of the political and constitutional foundation of the Belgian State and is part of the identity of the Belgian State. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 is therefore contrary to Article 4(2) TEU, according to which the Union is to respect the national identities of Member States.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5(1) and (4) TEU and of Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
The linguistic obligations imposed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 are not in accordance with the principle of conferral (1) or with the proportionality principle (2).






(1)


There is not a single provision of the Treaty which confers on the Union the competence to govern the use of languages within and by public administrations in the Member States.










(2)


The obligation to make a translation available to the public ‘in an official language of the Union broadly understood by the largest possible number of cross-border users’ (Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724) is not in accordance with and contains no reasons in respect of the proportionality principle. The language requirements that are imposed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 are disproportionate in view of the intended objective.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and breach of the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of language and of the principle of equality between the Member States.
Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 infringes Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and breaches the general principle of non-discrimination on the basis of language and the principle of equality between the Member States in so far as it discourages citizens who wish to establish themselves in a Member State which is not their own Member State from learning the official language or one of the official languages of that Member State, and also in so far as it imposes the generalisation of the use of one unique working language, which in that way becomes the de facto European language of public services and administrations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty and of normative clarity and infringement of point I.2 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on ‘Better Law-Making’.
The language obligations imposed on the Member States by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 are manifestly contrary to the principles of clarity, precision, foreseeability and coherence. The translation obligations imposed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 are unclear, imprecise, unforeseeable and incoherent as regards the language into which it is necessary to translate.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 291(2) TFEU.
The implementation of the translation obligations imposed by Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 requires that the language into which it is necessary to translate be stated in a certain and express manner. The institutional arrangement of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 is, however, unclear in that respect. Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 is then also not in accordance with the delicate institutional balance provided for in Article 291 TFEU and Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (2) (the ‘Comitology Regulation’), given that the arrangement effectively allows the European Commission to bypass the procedure laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and adopt legislation in the informal way.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).