Case C-657/21: Action brought on 29 October 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission
Date: 2021-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, budget policy, financial management, implementation of the budget, operation of the Institutions, regulation (EU), rule of law








C_2022011EN.01001802.xml










10.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/18






Action brought on 29 October 2021 — European Parliament v European Commission
(Case C-657/21)
(2022/C 11/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Crowe, U. Rösslein, C. Burgos, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


establish that, by failing to ensure the full and immediate application Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget, as from its date of application on 1 January 2021, the European Commission infringed the Treaties;










—


in the alternative, annul the Commission’s unlawful refusal to ensure the full and immediate application of Regulation 2020/2092, as from its date of application;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation under the second sentence of Article 17(1) TEU to ensure the application of the Treaties and of the measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them.
The Commission is failing to apply Regulation 2020/2092 in full, since it unlawfully excludes itself from applying the core provisions of Article 6 of the regulation until after it has finalised guidelines on the application of the regulation, which it will do only after the judgments of the Court in the actions for annulment brought by two Member States against the regulation have been delivered. This failure to apply the regulation in full until the Court’s judgments in the actions for annulment constitutes an infringement of the Commission’s responsibilities under Article 17(1) TEU, which obliges it to ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them.
Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Commission’s obligation under the third paragraph of Article 17(3) TEU to be completely independent in carrying out its responsibilities.
The Commission’s failure to ensure the full and immediate application of the regulation, without self-imposed constraints, as from its date of application, pursuant to an instruction from the European Council, represents a violation of its obligation of independence under the third paragraph of Article 17(3) TEU.
Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and the principles of institutional balance and mutual sincere cooperation.
The Commission’s failure to ensure the full and immediate application of the regulation, without self-imposed constraints, as from its date of application, pursuant to an instruction from the European Council, amounts to an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU, according to which each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, as well as the principles of institutional balance and mutual sincere cooperation.


(1)  OJ 2020, L 433I, p. 1.