CELEX: 62014CN0132
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-132/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

10.6.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 175/24
            
         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-132/14)
   2014/C 175/30
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union; (1)
               
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The European Parliament seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No 1385/2013 which the Council adopted on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.
   The Parliament contests the choice of legal basis operated by the Council as Article 349 TFEU cannot provide a legal basis for all the measures adopted, but only some of them consisting of derogations from the application of EU law to Mayotte. The contested regulation also implements measures which fall within the areas of the common fisheries policy and the protection of public health, without those measures being based on the structural social and economic situation specific to Mayotte.
   In the opinion of the Parliament, the act in question should therefore have been adopted on the basis of Articles 43(2), 168(4)(b) and 349 TFEU jointly, and not on the basis of Article 349 alone.
   
      (1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86