CELEX: 62014CN0363
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-363/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

22.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 329/10
            
         Action brought on 28 July 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-363/14)
   2014/C 329/12
   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
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/269/EU of 6 May 2014 amending Decision 2009/935/JHA as regards the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements (1)
               
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay all the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   In support of its action, the European Parliament raises three pleas in law.
   Firstly, the European Parliament contests the use by the Council of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/269/EU. The Parliament deduces therefrom that the Council has committed not only a breach of the Treaties but also a breach of essential procedural requirements.
   Secondly, the European Parliament complains of the Council’s use either of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon or of a secondary legal basis, which is unlawful pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Justice.
   Lastly, in the view of the Parliament, the list of third States and organisations with which Europol is to conclude agreements is a legislative matter. It should be considered by the EU legislature, since it is an essential element of a regulated area. In consequence, the legal basis and procedure used by the Council are legally incorrect.
   
      (1)  OJ 2014 L 138, p. 104.