CELEX: 62018TN0306
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-306/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Hungary v Commission

201807130722004362018/C 268/483062018TC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180516394021Case T-306/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Hungary v Commission
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN3910120180516EN0048391402Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-306/18)2018/C 268/48Language of the case: Hungarian
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
            —
         
         
            Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/262 of 14 February 2018 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled: ‘We are a welcoming Europe, let us help!’. (
                  1
               )
         
      
            —
         
         
            Order the Commission to pay the costs.
         
      
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
   
            1.
         
         
            First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b), (c) and (d), and 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 (
                  2
               )
            The first and second parts of the European citizens’ initiative registered under the contested decision are manifestly outside the scope of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. For that reason, the registration of the initiative infringes Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. Furthermore, the first part of the initiative is abusive and, consequently, is also contrary to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. As regards the second part, it can be argued that it can lead to a result contrary to the values of the EU established in Article 2 TEU, and is therefore also contrary to Article 4(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.
         
      
            2.
         
         
            Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
            The contested decision does not satisfy the requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons, and therefore infringes the obligation to state reasons established in Article 296 TFEU and the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In essence, the contested decision does not give any indication of the grounds on which the Commission found that, as regards the third part of the initiative, there is an appropriate legal basis and legislative power of the EU which meets the requirement established in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 relating to the registration.
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ 2018 L 49, p. 64.
   (
         2
      )	OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 2011 L 330, p. 47, and in OJ 2012 L 94, p. 49.