Case C-486/24: Action brought on 10 July 2024 – Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Date: 2024-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU office or agency, dissemination of information, freedom of the press, law relating to information, mass media, pluralism in the media, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, service








C_202405088EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5088


26.8.2024






Action brought on 10 July 2024 – Hungary v European Parliament and Council of the European Union


(Case C-486/24)

(C/2024/5088)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 establishing a common framework for media services in the internal market and amending Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) or
in the alternative










—


annul the following provisions of Regulation (EU) 2024/1083 of the European Parliament and of the Council:






—


Article 2, point 3, and Article 5;










—


Article 2, point 20, and Article 4;










—


Article 6;










—


Article 7;










—


provisions relating to the European Board for Media Services;










—


Articles 21 to 23; and










—


Article 2, point 19, and Article 25.




and










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments


First plea in law: the legal basis for the regulation is inappropriate and the regulation lacks an appropriate legal basis

The media services governed by the regulation are of a cultural and economic nature, but the regulation does not actually govern the economic aspects of those services. The regulation contains provisions falling within a field in respect of which the European Union has harmonising and supplementing powers, in accordance with Article 6(c) and Article 167(5) TFEU. As such, Article 114 TFEU cannot be considered to be an appropriate legal basis. The true primary objective of the regulation is to foster the fundamental values of the European Union – democracy and the rule of law – by promoting media freedom and media pluralism, for which Article 114 TFEU does not provide an appropriate legal basis. Even if the creation of an internal market for media services were the primary objective or the most important of the regulatory objectives which the regulation seeks to achieve, it is not apparent from the regulation which obstacles to the functioning of the internal market it intends to eliminate. Divergences between national rules do not, in themselves, justify recourse to Article 114 TFEU. The lack of an appropriate legal basis is clear as regards the rules on matters of national security and on criminal matters set out in the regulation, in respect of which the European Union has no ordinary legislative powers on the basis of which the regulation could be allowable. In themselves, the rules established by the regulation govern a field – and thus offer additional regulatory options – in respect of which the Member States have not conferred competence on the European Union within the meaning of Article 4 TEU. That is true with regard to the non-economic aspects of media services, to press publications and to their impact on the maintenance of public order and the protection of national security. In breach of Article 4 TEU, the regulation entails in particular an interference with Member States’ exclusive competences in relation to national security.

Second plea in law: the regulation is contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) TEU and, in conjunction therewith, to Article 5 TEU and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

The regulation legislates on matters which may be regulated and which are even already adequately regulated at central, regional or local level in the Member States, so that those matters cannot be given effect to at EU level by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action. The regulation also deprives the Member States of their competences in various fields. Moreover, unlike the legal form of a directive, the legal form of a regulation removes the possibility of regulation by the Member States and only allows the adoption of more stringent rules, thereby breaching the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Third plea in law: breach of the principles of legal certainty and legislative clarity, recognised as general principles of EU law

The underlying concepts used in the regulation are in part not defined and in part cannot be the subject of a uniform definition either. For that reason, they are not a suitable basis for the assessments and the measures which may be made or adopted based on the regulation or to allow the Member States to identify with the necessary certainty from that regulation what is expected of them concerning their legal systems or the functioning of their authorities. Similarly, various specific provisions of the regulation, in particular the criminal law measures which may be adopted by the Member States, both individually and together, involve such a degree of legal uncertainty in relation to the application of the regulation that they breach the general principles of EU law of legal certainty and legislative clarity and thus give rise to legal uncertainty in proceedings in the Member States, especially proceedings of a criminal nature.

Fourth plea in law: annulment of Article 2(3) and Article 5 of the regulation

Article 2(3) and Article 5 of the regulation are contrary to Article 5 TEU, Articles 153(1) and 167(5) TFEU and Protocol No 29 annexed to the Treaties, and do not comply with the requirements of legislative clarity and legal certainty.

Fifth plea in law: annulment of Article 2, point 20, and Article 4 of the regulation

Article 2, point 20, and Article 4 of the regulation are contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5 TEU and Articles 82, 83 and Article 167(5) TFEU, and do not comply with the requirements of legal certainty.

Sixth plea in law: annulment of Article 6 of the regulation

Article 6 of the regulation is contrary to Article 5 TEU and Article 56 and Article 167(5) TFEU, and breaches the principles of proportionality, legislative clarity and legal certainty.

Seventh plea in law: annulment of Article 7 of the regulation

Article 7 of the regulation breaches the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 TEU and does not comply with the requirements of legal certainty.

Eighth plea in law: annulment of the provisions relating to the European Board for Media Services

The provisions of the regulation relating to the European Board for Media Services are contrary to Article 5 TEU and Article 167(5) TFEU, and breach the principle of proportionality.

Ninth plea in law: annulment of Articles 21 to 23 of the regulation

Articles 21 to 23 of the regulation are contrary to Article 5 TEU and Article 63 and Article 167(5) TFEU, and breach the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of legislative clarity and legal certainty.

Tenth plea in law: annulment of Article 2, point 19, and Article 25 of the regulation

Article 25 of the regulation is contrary to Article 5 TEU and breaches the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and of legislative clarity and legal certainty.


(1)  
            OJ L 2024/1083, 17.4.2024.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5088/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)