CELEX: 62015CN0116
Language: en
Date: 2015-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-116/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

4.5.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 146/30
            
         Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-116/15)
   (2015/C 146/37)
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)
   
      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The European Parliament invokes two pleas in law in support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU.
   By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the Council used an incorrect legal basis in order to adopt Decision 2014/911/EU. In the context of that first plea in law, the Parliament puts forward two limbs of reasoning. The Parliament claims in particular that the Council should have found a legal basis for the contested decision amongst the provisions of the TFEU and that, in any event, the Council relied on an unlawful provision for the adoption of Decision 2014/911/EU. It used a derived legal basis, which, as such, is unlawful, in accordance with the Court’s case-law. Under that plea, the Parliament raises a plea of illegality relating to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2).
   By its second plea in law, the Parliament complains that the Council used an incorrect decisional procedure in order to adopt that decision. The Parliament thus derives therefrom an infringement of the Treaties and an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.
   
      (1)  OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28.
   
      (2)  OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1.