Case T-611/19: Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission
Date: 2019-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, European citizenship, Spain, democratisation, petition, rights of minorities








C_2019363EN.01003201.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/32






Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas v Commission
(Case T-611/19)
(2019/C 363/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Iniciativa ciudadana - Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas (Spain) (represented by: G. Boye, I. Elbal Sánchez, E. Valcuende Sillero and I. González Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision 2019/1182 of 3 July 2019, refusing the registration of the citizens’ initiative (Iniciativa ciudadana) entitled ‘Derecho de la UE, derechos de las minorías y democratización de las instituciones españolas’ (‘EU law, minority rights and democratisation of Spanish institutions’);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the Commission’s decision refusing the registration of the aforementioned citizens’ initiative, in which the Commission was invited to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union, relating to the following matters: principles of legality and legal certainty, independence and impartiality of the courts, separation of powers, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, right to free elections, right to liberty and right to equal treatment.
The contested decision found that the actions proposed in the initiative fell 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.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements






—


In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision infringes Article 296(2) TFEU, under which legal acts of the institutions of the European Union are to state the reasons on which they are based, and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative, (1) which states that where it refuses to register a proposed citizens’ initiative, the Commission is to inform the organisers ‘of the reasons for such refusal’.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaty or any legal rule relating to its implementation.






—


In that connection, it is claimed that the contested decision refusing registration infringes Article 11 TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU and Article 4(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the aforementioned regulation, which implements those provisions of the Treaty.














3.


Third plea in law, based on the nature of the actions proposed in the citizens’ initiative






—


In that connection, it is claimed that none of the matters covered by the citizens’ initiative manifestly fall 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.














4.


Fourth plea in law, relating to the compliance of the proposed citizens’ initiative with the EU legal framework






—


In that connection, it is claimed that it is clear from the wording of Article 4(2)(b) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, as well as the content of the initiative that is the subject matter of the dispute, that, in the present case, each and every one of the requirements under the applicable regulation has been met and, therefore, the initiative ought to have been registered.










(1)  OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1.