1 By its appeal, the Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the CC’) asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2022, Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (T‑158/21, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2022:696), by which the General Court dismissed its action for the annulment of Commission Communication C(2021) 171 final of 14 January 2021 on the European Citizens’ Initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the communication at issue’).
2 Article 2 TEU provides: ‘The [European] Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.’
3 Article 10 TEU provides: ‘1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy. … 3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen. …’
4 Article 11(4) TEU provides: ‘Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.’
5 As set out in Article 17(1) and (2) TEU: ‘1. The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. It shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them. It shall oversee the application of Union law under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It shall execute the budget and manage programmes. It shall exercise coordinating, executive and management functions, as laid down in the Treaties. With the exception of the common foreign and security policy, and other cases provided for in the Treaties, it shall ensure the Union’s external representation. It shall initiate the Union’s annual and multiannual programming with a view to achieving interinstitutional agreements. 2. Union legislative acts may only be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. Other acts shall be adopted on the basis of a Commission proposal where the Treaties so provide.’
6 Article 165 TFEU provides: ‘1. The Union shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. … 4. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article: … - the Council [of the European Union], on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations.’
7 As set out in Article 167 TFEU: ‘1. The Union shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore. … 5. In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article: … - the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations.’
8 Recital 1 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1) was worded as follows: ‘The Treaty on European Union (TEU) reinforces citizenship of the Union and enhances further the democratic functioning of the Union by providing, inter alia, that every citizen is to have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European citizens’ initiative. That procedure affords citizens the possibility of directly approaching the Commission with a request inviting it to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties similar to the right conferred on the European Parliament under Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and on the Council under Article 241 TFEU.’
9 Recital 20 of that regulation stated: ‘The Commission should examine a citizens’ initiative and set out its legal and political conclusions separately. It should also set out the action it intends to take in response to it, within a period of three months. In order to demonstrate that a citizens’ initiative supported by at least one million Union citizens and its possible follow-up are carefully examined, the Commission should explain in a clear, comprehensible and detailed manner the reasons for its intended action, and should likewise give its reasons if it does not intend to take any action. When the Commission has received a citizens’ initiative supported by the requisite number of signatories which fulfils the other requirements of this Regulation, the organisers should be entitled to present that initiative at a public hearing at Union level.’
10 Article 2 of that regulation provided as follows: ‘For the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:
11 Article 4 of that regulation, headed ‘Registration of a proposed citizens’ initiative’, provided, in paragraphs 1 and 2: ‘1. Prior to initiating the collection of statements of support from signatories for a proposed citizens’ initiative, the organisers shall be required to register it with the Commission, providing the information set out in Annex II, in particular on the subject matter and objectives of the proposed citizens’ initiative. That information shall be provided in one of the official languages of the Union, in an online register made available for that purpose by the Commission (“the register”). The organisers shall provide, for the register and where appropriate on their website, regularly updated information on the sources of support and funding for the proposed citizens’ initiative. After the registration is confirmed in accordance with paragraph 2, the organisers may provide the proposed citizens’ initiative in other official languages of the Union for inclusion in the register. The translation of the proposed citizens’ initiative into other official languages of the Union shall be the responsibility of the organisers. The Commission shall establish a point of contact which provides information and assistance. 2. Within two months from the receipt of the information set out in Annex II, the Commission shall register a proposed citizens’ initiative under a unique registration number and send a confirmation to the organisers, provided that the following conditions are fulfilled:
12 The first paragraph of Article 9 of that regulation, headed ‘Submission of a citizens’ initiative to the Commission’, provided: ‘After obtaining the certificates provided for in Article 8(2), and provided that all relevant procedures and conditions set out in this Regulation have been complied with, the organisers may submit the citizens’ initiative to the Commission, accompanied by information regarding any support and funding received for that initiative. That information shall be published in the register.’
13 Article 10 of that regulation, headed ‘Procedure for the examination of a citizens’ initiative by the Commission’, provided: ‘1. Where the Commission receives a citizens’ initiative in accordance with Article 9 it shall: 2. The communication referred to in paragraph 1(c) shall be notified to the organisers as well as to the European Parliament and the Council and shall be made public.’
14 Article 11 of that regulation, headed ‘Public hearing’, provided: ‘Where the conditions of Article 10(1)(a) and (b) are fulfilled, and within the deadline laid down in Article 10(1)(c), the organisers shall be given the opportunity to present the citizens’ initiative at a public hearing. The Commission and the European Parliament shall ensure that this hearing is organised at the European Parliament, if appropriate together with such other institutions and bodies of the Union as may wish to participate, and that the Commission is represented at an appropriate level.’
15 That regulation was repealed, with effect from 1 January 2020, by Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European citizens’ initiative (OJ 2019 L 130, p. 55). In accordance with Article 27 of the latter regulation, Articles 5 to 9 of Regulation No 211/2011 continued to apply after 1 January 2020 to European citizens’ initiatives registered before 1 January 2020.
16 Article 14 of Regulation 2019/788, headed ‘Publication and public hearing’, provides: ‘1. When the Commission receives a valid initiative in respect of which the statements of support have been collected and certified in accordance with Articles 8 to 12, it shall publish without delay a notice to that effect in the register and transmit the initiative to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, as well as to the national parliaments. 2. Within three months of the submission of the initiative, the group of organisers shall be given the opportunity to present the initiative at a public hearing held by the European Parliament. The European Parliament shall organise the public hearing at its premises. The Commission shall be represented in the hearing at an appropriate level. The Council, other institutions and advisory bodies of the Union, the national parliaments and civil society shall be given the opportunity to attend the hearing. The European Parliament shall ensure a balanced representation of relevant public and private interests. 3. Following the public hearing, the European Parliament shall assess the political support for the initiative.’
17 As set out in Article 15 of that regulation, headed ‘Examination by the Commission’: ‘1. Within one month of the submission of the initiative in accordance with Article 13, the Commission shall receive the group of organisers at an appropriate level to allow it to explain in detail the objectives of the initiative. 2. Within six months of the publication of the initiative in accordance with Article 14(1), and after the public hearing referred to in Article 14(2), the Commission shall set out in a communication its legal and political conclusions on the initiative, the action it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking action. Where the Commission intends to take action in response to the initiative, including, where appropriate, the adoption of one or more proposals for a legal act of the Union, the communication shall also set out the envisaged timeline for these actions. The communication shall be notified to the group of organisers as well as to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and shall be made public. 3. The Commission and the group of organisers shall inform the signatories on the response to the initiative in accordance with Article 18(2) and (3). The Commission shall provide, in the register and on the public website on the European citizens’ initiative, up-to-date information on the implementation of the actions set out in the communication adopted in response to the initiative.’
18 The background to the dispute, as set out in paragraphs 2 to 10 of the judgment under appeal, can be summarised as follows.
19 The CC submitted a request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the Minority SafePack proposal’) to the Commission, on the basis of Article 11(4) TEU and Regulation No 211/2011.
20 The aim of the Minority SafePack proposal was to encourage the European Union to adopt a series of acts in order to improve the protection of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and to strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity within the European Union.
21 Following that proposal, the Commission adopted Decision (EU) 2017/652 of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (OJ 2017 L 92, p. 100), by which it declared, in Article 1(1) of that decision, that that proposal was registered and, in Article 1(2), that statements in support of that proposal could be collected, based on the understanding that it aimed at the following nine proposals from the Commission: - a recommendation of the Council ‘on the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union’ (‘the first proposal’); - a decision or a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council, the subject matter of which is to adapt ‘funding programmes so that they become accessible for small regional and minority language communities’ (‘the second proposal’); - a decision or a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council, the subject matter of which is to create a centre for linguistic diversity that will strengthen awareness of the importance of regional and minority languages and will promote diversity at all levels and be financed mainly by the European Union (‘the third proposal’); - a regulation adapting the general rules applicable to the tasks, priority objectives and the organisation of the Structural Funds in such a way that account is taken of the protection of minorities and the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity provided that the actions to be financed lead to the strengthening of the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the European Union (‘the fourth proposal’); - a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council, the subject matter of which is to change the regulation relating to the ‘Horizon 2020’ programme for the purposes of improving research on the added value that national minorities and cultural and linguistic diversity may bring to social and economic development in regions of the European Union; - the amendment of EU legislation in order to guarantee approximately equal treatment for stateless persons and citizens of the European Union (‘the sixth proposal’); - a regulation of the Parliament and of the Council in order to introduce a unitary copyright so that the whole European Union can be considered an internal market in the field of copyright; - an amendment of Directive 2010/13/EU of the Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1), for the purpose of ensuring the freedom to provide services and the reception of audiovisual content in regions where national minorities reside (‘the eighth proposal’); - a Council regulation or decision, with a view to the block exemption of projects promoting national minorities and their culture from the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.
22 On 10 January 2020, the CC had collected more than 1 300 000 statements of support within the prescribed period, including, according to the communication at issue, 1 128 422 statements validated by the competent authorities of 11 Member States. The CC therefore submitted the European citizens’ initiative in question (‘the Minority SafePack initiative’) to the Commission.
23 On 5 February 2020, the CC set out, at a meeting with the Commission, the proposals of the Minority SafePack initiative, in accordance with Article 15(1) of Regulation 2019/788, and subsequently submitted a document to the Commission explaining the corresponding legislative proposals.
24 On 15 October 2020, the Minority SafePack initiative was presented to the Parliament at a public hearing in accordance with Article 14(2) of Regulation 2019/788.
25 On 17 December 2020, the Parliament adopted Resolution (2020)2846(RSP), P9_TA-PROV (2020)0370, calling on the Commission, inter alia, to act on that initiative by proposing legal acts based on the Treaties and Regulation 2019/788 in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
26 On 14 January 2021, the Commission adopted the communication at issue, by which it decided not to act on Resolution (2020)2846(RSP), P9_TA-PROV (2020)0370, or on the nine proposals of the Minority SafePack initiative.
27 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 March 2021, the CC brought an action for the annulment of the communication at issue.
28 In support of that action, the CC raised three pleas in law. The first alleged infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The second alleged an error of law and several manifest errors of assessment as regards the first, third, sixth and eighth proposals. The third, raised in the reply, alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, having regard to the treatment which the Commission had accorded to the ‘End the Cage Age’ European citizens’ initiative.
29 By the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed that action. In that regard, in so far as concerns the first plea in law, which Hungary supported, the General Court found, inter alia, that the Commission had provided sufficient reasons for the communication at issue, in that it had set out the legal and political conclusions which led it to find that it was not necessary to take the action requested in the Minority SafePack initiative, in accordance with Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788, given the number of initiatives already undertaken by the EU institutions in the areas covered by that initiative, even though it had not expressly adopted a position on each of the written and oral explanations given by the CC.
30 As regards the third plea, the General Court found that the CC had neither demonstrated how the Minority SafePack initiative and the ‘End the Cage Age’ European citizens’ initiative were comparable nor claimed that the Commission had not complied with its obligations under Articles 14 and 15 of Regulation 2019/788 during the procedure relating to the Minority SafePack initiative. The General Court therefore rejected that plea without examining whether it was admissible.
31 As regards the second plea, the General Court held that none of the errors of law or manifest errors of assessment relied on by the CC, supported by Hungary, had been established, having regard in particular to the Commission’s broad discretion in the matter and to the already existing instruments which contribute to the attainment of the objectives pursued by the first, third, sixth and eighth proposals.
32 By orders of the President of the Court of 27 July 2023, Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (C‑26/23 P, EU:C:2023:616) and Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission (C‑26/23 P, EU:C:2023:618), the Autonome Provinz Bozen Südtirol - Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Alto Adige (Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige, Italy) and the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgiens (German-speaking Community of Belgium), respectively, were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the CC.
33 By its appeal, the CC claims that the Court of Justice should: - set aside the judgment under appeal; - annul the communication at issue; - or, in the alternative: set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court; and - order the Commission to pay the costs.
34 The Commission contends that the Court should: - dismiss the appeal; and - order the CC to pay the costs.
35 Hungary, the Autonome Provinz Bozen Südtirol - Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Alto Adige (Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige) and the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgiens (German-speaking Community of Belgium) each seek before the Court the same form of order as the CC.
36 The CC puts forward nine grounds in support of its appeal. The first ground of appeal alleges infringement of the right to a fair hearing enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). The second ground of appeal alleges failure to observe the principle of equal treatment, enshrined in Article 9 TEU. The third ground of appeal alleges a disregard of the competence of the Commission with regard to the first proposal. The fourth ground of appeal alleges a misinterpretation of the concept of ‘manifest error of assessment’ in the context of examining a European citizens’ initiative. The fifth and sixth grounds of appeal allege several errors of law made by the General Court in rejecting the CC’s line of argument that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment with regard to the first and third proposals. The seventh ground of appeal alleges an infringement of the rules on the burden of proof with regard to the eighth proposal. The eighth ground of appeal alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the written and oral information provided to the Commission in the procedure relating to a European citizens’ initiative and concerns the first, second, fourth and sixth proposals. Lastly, the ninth ground of appeal alleges infringement of Articles 36 and 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union on account of contradictory reasoning on the issue of the Commission’s powers to implement the first proposal and insufficient reasoning concerning the examination of a manifest error of assessment in the rejection of the sixth proposal.
37 The CC submits that the designation, by the President of the General Court, of another Judge-Rapporteur and the reassignment of the case to another Chamber of the General Court, carried out pursuant to Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, was decided contrary to Article 47 of the Charter, which provides that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law and should be interpreted by the Court of Justice in a manner which safeguards an adequate level of protection that does not fall below the level of protection established in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).
38 The CC submits that, first of all, Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not meet the requirements stemming from Article 47 of the Charter, since the former provision does not lay down clear and objective criteria for the designation of another Judge-Rapporteur.
39 Next, the President of the General Court failed, in the present case, to state reasons for his decision to reassign the case, contrary to the requirements of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure and therefore also to Article 47 of the Charter.
40 Lastly, the decision to designate another Judge-Rapporteur led, in the present case, first, to the designation of a Judge-Rapporteur with less experience in disputes relating to European citizens’ initiatives than the Judge-Rapporteur previously appointed and, second, to the involvement of a judge whose previous functions cast doubt on his independence and impartiality.
41 The Commission contends that the first ground of appeal is unfounded.
42 As regards, in the first place, the ground for complaint that Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court does not meet the requirements of Article 47 of the Charter, it should be recalled that, as set out in the first sentence of the second paragraph of that article, ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.’
43 In that regard, since the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter corresponds to the first sentence of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, its meaning and scope are, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the same as those laid down by the ECHR. The Court must therefore ensure that the interpretation which it gives to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter safeguards a level of protection which does not fall below the level of protection established in Article 6 ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 26 March 2020, Review Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, C‑542/18 RX-II and C‑543/18 RX-II, EU:C:2020:232, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited).
44 The Court has thus previously held that, according to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the reason for the introduction of the term ‘established by law’ in the first sentence of Article 6(1) ECHR is to ensure that the organisation of the judicial system does not depend on the discretion of the executive, but that it is regulated by law emanating from the legislature in compliance with the rules governing its jurisdiction. That phrase reflects, in particular, the principle of the rule of law and covers not only the legal basis for the very existence of a tribunal, but also the composition of the bench in each case and any other provision of domestic law which, if breached, would render the participation of one or more judges in the examination of a case irregular, including, in particular, provisions concerning the independence and impartiality of the members of the court concerned (judgment of 26 March 2020, Review Simpson v Council and HG v Commission, C‑542/18 RX-II and C‑543/18 RX-II, EU:C:2020:232, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).
45 As regards the allocation of cases within the General Court, Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides, inter alia, that the General Court is to lay down the criteria by which cases are to be allocated among the Chambers and that the decision on those criteria is to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Article 26 of those Rules governs the first assignment of a case and the designation of the Judge-Rapporteur.
46 As to the designation of a new Judge-Rapporteur and the reassignment of a case, which are the only matters at issue in the present case, the relevant rules are laid down by Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure. First, that article sets out three situations in which the President of the General Court may designate a Judge-Rapporteur other than the Judge-Rapporteur initially designated pursuant to Article 26 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court and, accordingly, reassign a case: the first situation (Article 27(1) of the Rules of Procedure) is that in which the Judge-Rapporteur is prevented from acting, the second (Article 27(2) of the Rules of Procedure) is that where there is a connection between cases on the basis of their subject matter, and the third (Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure) is based on considerations of the proper administration of justice.
47 It must therefore be held that it is futile for the CC to claim that Article 27(3) does not comply with Article 47 of the Charter on the ground that it does not contain clear and objective criteria for the designation of a new Judge-Rapporteur, since that claim is refuted by the very wording of paragraph 3. Furthermore, it is common ground that it is in the interests of the proper administration of justice that a new Judge-Rapporteur was designated at first instance. As the Court of Justice has previously held, the reassignment of a case, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, ensures, inter alia, an even spread of the workload and therefore pursues the objective of processing cases within a reasonable time, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter (see, by analogy, judgment of 2 October 2014, Strack v Commission, C‑127/13 P, EU:C:2014:2250, paragraphs 51 and 52).
48 Second, Article 27(3) further states that, if the new Judge-Rapporteur is not attached to the Chamber to which the case was first assigned, the case is to be heard and determined by the Chamber in which the new Judge-Rapporteur sits. Thus, the potential consequence of designating a new Judge-Rapporteur, in terms of the composition of the formation of the court that will hear and determine the case, is also provided for by the provision at issue, with the result that, in that regard also, the CC cannot meaningfully claim that such reassignment is carried out arbitrarily, contrary to Article 47 of the Charter.
49 Moreover, by providing that the President of the General Court may designate a new Judge-Rapporteur and reassign the case in the interests of the proper administration of justice and by way of exception, Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court is intended to ensure that such a decision may be taken only at a relatively early stage of the proceedings, since that provision expressly provides that such a decision may be taken only before the presentation of the preliminary report.
50 The first ground for complaint in the first ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
51 In the second place, as regards the alleged failure to state reasons for the decision to reassign the case, it should be borne in mind that that decision was based on the interests of the proper administration of justice. It is therefore clear that, using the pretext of an alleged breach of the obligation to state reasons, the CC is disputing the relevance, in the light of the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, of that criterion laid down in Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. It follows from the case-law already recalled in paragraph 47 above that such a criticism is unfounded. That ground for complaint must, therefore, be rejected.
52 In the third place, suffice it to state, first, that, as is apparent from the very wording of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the alleged experience or inexperience of a judge in a given area is in no way relevant to the assessment of whether the decision to reassign a case to him or her as Judge-Rapporteur complies with that provision. Accordingly, the CC’s line of argument relating to the Judge-Rapporteur’s alleged inexperience must be rejected as ineffective.
53 Second, as regards the involvement of a judge whose previous functions, according to the CC, cast doubt on his independence and impartiality and, consequently, on those of the formation of the General Court which delivered the judgment under appeal, suffice it also to state that, in addition to his involvement in the formation of the General Court resulting from the application of the rule set out in Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which, as is apparent from paragraphs 47 and 48 above, the CC has not succeeded in establishing does not comply with Article 47 of the Charter, the Court of Justice has previously held that the mere fact that a member of the formation of the General Court used to work for the Commission, the defendant at first instance, before performing his duties as a judge at the General Court is not sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to his objective impartiality and that of that formation (see, to that effect, judgment of 24 March 2022, Wagenknecht v Commission, C‑130/21 P, EU:C:2022:226, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited). Moreover, there is a presumption of personal impartiality in the absence of evidence to the contrary (judgment of 24 March 2022, Wagenknecht v Commission, C‑130/21 P, EU:C:2022:226, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
54 The CC does not rely on any evidence in support of its line of argument other than the general fact that that judge performed functions within the Commission before being appointed a judge at the General Court. That line of argument is therefore unfounded.
55 In the light of all of the foregoing, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.
56 The CC submits that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 32 to 41 of the judgment under appeal by ruling out any breach of the principle of equal treatment. That principle requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified.
57 Unlike the Minority SafePack initiative, the ‘End the Cage Age’ European citizens’ initiative was the subject of seven meetings between the organisers of that initiative and the Commission, whereas there was no justification for such a difference in treatment between those two citizens’ initiatives. For all European citizens’ initiatives which have met the relevant requirements, citizens have the right to participate, through their intermediary, in the democratic life of the Union, in accordance with Article 11(4) TEU and Regulation 2019/788. The Commission is justified in treating them differently only on the basis of objective and reasonable criteria.
58 The Commission did not indicate the criteria on which it based its decision to meet with the organisers of certain European citizens’ initiatives, in addition to the public hearing provided for in Article 14(2) of Regulation 2019/788. In addition, it did not provide any information making it possible to verify that those criteria exist. Given the complexity of issues such as minority protection and linguistic diversity, the number of policy issues and Treaty articles concerned, it is ‘neither credible nor plausible’ that no further exchange regarding the Minority SafePack initiative was necessary in the present case.
59 In its reply, the CC adds that the second ground of appeal is admissible, since it alleges an error of law in the General Court’s application of the principle of equal treatment. It states that, as in the proceedings before the General Court, it has argued that the ‘End the Cage’ European citizens’ initiative and the Minority SafePack initiative are sufficiently comparable. By requiring that they be comparable in terms of their respective aims and the political or legal difficulties they present, the General Court set excessive requirements, thereby erring in law.
60 The Commission contends that the second ground of appeal should be rejected as inadmissible, since the CC merely repeats the arguments relied on and examined before the General Court without challenging the judgment under appeal and, in any event, as unfounded.
61 It should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal, failing which the appeal or ground of appeal concerned will be inadmissible. Thus, elements of an appeal that contain no argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment in respect of which the appeal is brought do not fulfil that requirement and must be rejected as inadmissible (judgment of 4 October 2024, Ferriere Nord v Commission, C‑31/23 P, EU:C:2024:851, paragraphs 51 and 52 and the case-law cited).
62 In accordance with those requirements, arguments in an appeal which criticise the decision whose annulment was applied for before the General Court, rather than the judgment delivered by the General Court following an application for the annulment of a decision, are also inadmissible (judgment of 29 June 2023, TUIfly v Commission, C‑763/21 P, EU:C:2023:528, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
63 In the present case, it should be pointed out that, while, by its line of argument set out in paragraphs 56 to 58 of the present judgment, the CC claims that the General Court erred in law by rejecting its plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, it confines itself, in order to demonstrate that alleged error of law, to criticising the Commission for not having substantiated the reasons why it had decided to hold more meetings with the organisers of certain European citizens’ initiatives than with the organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative, without putting forward any legal arguments specifically supporting this ground of appeal and without even referring to the judgment under appeal, since its line of argument challenges the conduct allegedly adopted by the Commission. Consequently, that line of argument is inadmissible, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the present judgment.
64 Furthermore, even if the line of argument put forward by the CC in its reply were admissible in that it served to expand the third ground raised in the appeal, suffice it to note that, in paragraph 38 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court merely stated that, apart from the fact that the Minority SafePack initiative and the ‘End the Cage Age’ citizens’ initiative had both reached the required support threshold, the applicant had in no way explained how the former was comparable to the latter, ‘in particular’ in the light of their respective aims and the political or legal difficulties they present.
65 The General Court did not therefore require that they be comparable with regard to those elements, but merely found that the CC had confined itself to asserting, in general terms, that those two citizens’ initiatives were comparable in terms of the support they had received, and that such a general assertion was insufficient for the purpose of establishing that they were comparable. It is also apparent from the arguments submitted by the CC before the General Court, set out in paragraphs 32 to 34 of the judgment under appeal, that the CC merely highlighted the difference in treatment which it was claiming, without explaining how those initiatives were in fact comparable. That line of argument is therefore, in any event, unfounded.
66 It follows that the second ground of appeal must be rejected as being in part inadmissible and in part unfounded.
67 The CC submits that, by stating, in paragraphs 42 to 45 of the judgment under appeal, that it was in the light of the legal bases referred to in Decision 2017/652 in support of the first proposal that it was necessary to assess whether the communication at issue was vitiated by an error of law and manifest errors of assessment in the present case, the General Court disregarded the Commission’s broad discretion and competence.
68 The CC submits that the Commission was free to have recourse to legal bases other than the second indent of Article 165(4) and the second indent of Article 167(5) TFEU, in particular Article 2 and the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU, and Articles 19, 165, 166(4), 167(4) and (5), 168, 169, 173 and 352(1) TFEU.
69 The Hungarian Government adds that the Commission should have examined the other areas not covered by education and culture in the strict sense, since the Minority SafePack initiative was not limited solely to the latter two areas.
70 According to the Hungarian Government, the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 43, 79 and 80 of the judgment under appeal by holding that the first proposal came solely within the spheres of culture and education and that the use of regional or minority languages in other ‘areas of life’ fell outside the scope of the Commission’s competence. Article 167(4) TFEU establishes a link between cultural policy and the other policies of the European Union. Consequently, the organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative were entitled to assume that the Commission would also examine the proposals put forward in the sphere of culture in the light of the other areas expressly referred to in that citizens’ initiative, namely public administration, public services, the judiciary, the media, healthcare, commerce and consumer protection.
71 According to that government, the Commission’s competence permits it to exclude only those aspects which its prior analysis reveals to be manifestly outside the framework of its powers. This is not the case with the elements listed by the organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative as regards public services, the media, healthcare, commerce and consumer protection. Furthermore, the Commission did not indicate, in Decision 2017/652, that it intended to depart from the position of those organisers with regard to the legal basis or that it considered areas also covered by other provisions of the FEU Treaty not to be part of the Minority SafePack initiative.
72 Similarly, the General Court’s position, like that of the Commission, is incompatible with the case-law according to which the initial analysis conducted when a European citizens’ initiative is registered is without prejudice to the examination of the choice of the legal basis for an act adopted, as the case may be, as a result of that citizens’ initiative and following a proposal by the Commission. It follows that, in the present case, the Commission should have carried out a fresh examination of the nine proposals registered.
73 The German-speaking Community of Belgium claims that the General Court’s finding that the reference in point (a) of recital 4 of Decision 2017/652 is binding on the Commission in its assessment is without merit. Regulation 2019/788 does not allow such a conclusion to be drawn. In addition, giving a registration decision binding effect would be irreconcilable with the broad discretion enjoyed by the Commission as to the specific measures to be taken following the registration of a valid European citizens’ initiative. Furthermore, Regulation 2019/788 can only - to use the terms of recital 5 of that regulation - ‘achieve its full potential as a tool to foster debate’ if the Commission conducts a comprehensive analysis of the legal bases and does not restrict its assessment to the legal basis identified in the registration decision concerned.
74 The Commission disputes those arguments.
75 In paragraphs 42 to 45 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the line of argument by which the CC claimed that the Commission had erred in considering that the European Union lacked competence to adopt the first proposal for the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity had to be examined in the light of those objectives and the legal bases referred to by the CC in support of that proposal.
76 By the third ground of appeal, the CC submits that, in so doing, the General Court erred in law, since the Commission could have attained the objectives of the first proposal by relying on legal bases other than those referred to in the Minority SafePack initiative.
77 The Commission’s decision not to take action in response to a European citizens’ initiative which has been registered and which has collected the required support is part of the Commission’s exercise of its power of legislative initiative conferred by Article 17 TEU. The Commission enjoys a broad discretion in the exercise of that power, with the result that that decision is subject to limited judicial review aimed at determining, inter alia, the sufficiency of its statement of reasons and the absence of manifest errors of assessment (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2019, Puppinck and Others v Commission, C‑418/18 P, EU:C:2019:1113, paragraphs 88, 89 and 96).
78 In that regard, it should be noted that it is clear from the wording of Article 11(4) TEU that a European citizens’ initiative is designed to ‘invite’ the Commission to submit an appropriate proposal for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, and not to oblige that institution to take the action or actions envisaged by the citizens’ initiative concerned. That textual interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Article 2(1) of Regulation No 211/2011, which defines a ‘citizens’ initiative’ as an initiative submitted to the Commission, in accordance with that regulation, ‘inviting’ the Commission to submit a proposal such as that specified in Article 11(4) TEU. It is clear moreover from the wording of Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788 that, when the Commission receives a European citizens’ initiative, it is to set out the action that it intends to take, if any, and its reasons for taking or not taking action, which confirms that the submission by the Commission of a proposal for an EU act in response to a European citizens’ initiative is optional (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2019, Puppinck and Others v Commission, C‑418/18 P, EU:C:2019:1113, paragraph 57).
79 If the Commission considers it appropriate, legally and politically, to take such action, it is then free to determine the ways and means of ensuring the implementation of that action, in particular its legal basis, which depends on the purpose of that action and the rules laid down by the FEU Treaty.
80 By contrast, where the Commission decides not to take action in response to a European citizens’ initiative, Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788 requires it not to identify, exhaustively, the legal bases on which such action could have been taken, but to set out the reasons why it decided not to make use of its power of legislative initiative.
81 In the present case, in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court pointed out that the aim of the first proposal is the adoption of a Council recommendation on the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity within the European Union defining ways to protect and promote cultural and linguistic diversity. The organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative proposed that that recommendation be adopted on the basis of Article 165(4) and Article 167(5) TFEU, whereas only the areas of education and culture are covered by those legal bases.
82 Contrary to the CC’s assertion, the General Court did not err in law in finding, in paragraph 45 of the judgment under appeal, that it was in the light of the objective pursued by the first proposal and the legal bases referred to by the CC as regards that proposal that it was necessary to assess whether the communication at issue was vitiated by an error of law and manifest errors of assessment.
83 The third ground of appeal is unfounded and must therefore be rejected.
84 According to the CC, the General Court erred in law when it held, in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, first, that an error may be classified as manifest only where it can be readily detected and, second, that the evidence adduced by the parties must be sufficient to make the Commission’s findings implausible. The CC contends that such requirements impose an additional burden on applicants and do not stem from the line of case-law originating from the judgment of 19 December 2019, Puppinck and Others v Commission (C‑418/18 P, EU:C:2019:1113).
85 The German-speaking Community of Belgium argues that the General Court’s interpretation would mean that the Commission could take arbitrary decisions on the merits as long as it can provide any explanation. That interpretation is all the less acceptable given that the Commission’s obligation to examine the specific objectives of a European citizens’ initiative carefully when taking decisions under Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788 also follows from the right to good administration, enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter, which expressly applies by virtue of recital 28 of Regulation 2019/788.
86 The Commission contends that the fourth ground of appeal is ineffective, since the CC has not demonstrated that the alleged error of law had an influence on the operative part of the judgment under appeal.
87 In any event, the fourth ground of appeal is, it is contended, unfounded.
88 Where the EU institutions enjoy, as the Commission does in the present case, a broad discretion and, in particular, where they are required to make choices that are, in particular, of a political nature and to undertake complex assessments, judicial review of the assessments that underpin the exercise of that discretion is to consist in determining the absence of manifest errors (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 September 2017, Slovakia and Hungary v Council, C‑643/15 and C‑647/15, EU:C:2017:631, paragraphs 123 and 124 and the case-law cited, and judgment of 19 December 2019, Puppinck and Others v Commission, C‑418/18 P, EU:C:2019:1113, paragraph 95).
89 Accordingly, the General Court did not err in law in holding, in paragraphs 52 to 89 of the judgment under appeal, that the communication at issue came within the exercise by the Commission of its broad discretion and, consequently, was to be subject to judicial review aimed at determining that its statement of reasons was sufficient and that there were no manifest errors of assessment.
90 It follows that the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.
91 The CC disputes the assessments by which the General Court held, in paragraphs 54 to 87 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had not made a manifest error of assessment in considering that, taken together, the acts mentioned in the communication at issue made it possible to achieve the objective pursued by the first proposal.
92 According to the Hungarian Government, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission had not made a manifest error of assessment when it considered that no additional legal act was necessary in order to achieve the objective pursued by the first proposal, because that objective could be achieved by all the acts mentioned in the communication at issue. Neither the Commission nor the General Court analysed the combined effect of the legal instruments and actions described in the Minority SafePack initiative. They only examined them one by one in order to ascertain whether they displayed a link with the objective pursued by that initiative, whereas none of the EU legal instruments referred to in the Minority SafePack initiative had as a central and essential element the actual objective of that initiative, which is the use of regional and minority languages in that context.
93 According to the Hungarian Government, the fact that a measure explicitly refers to an objective, which entails an expression of will, and the fact that that objective does not fall outside the scope of a measure, which constitutes a mere possibility, are two quite different things. If the legal instruments listed in the communication at issue are not capable in themselves of achieving the effect explicitly sought by the organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative, it is difficult to claim that, taken together, they are capable of doing so.
94 The Commission disputes those arguments.
95 By the fifth ground of appeal, the CC disputes the grounds set out in paragraphs 54 to 87 of the judgment under appeal, by which the General Court rejected, in paragraph 88 of that judgment, the argument that the Commission had erred in considering that the adoption of additional legal acts was not necessary in order to attain the objective pursued by the first proposal, since that objective was capable of being achieved by all the acts mentioned in the communication at issue.
96 In the communication at issue, the Commission drew up a list of existing instruments which, taken together, made it possible to attain the objectives of the first proposal.
97 The General Court, in paragraphs 58, 83 and 87 of the judgment under appeal, held that it was immaterial that an act, taken in isolation, did not enable the objective pursued by the first proposal to be fully achieved if all the acts mentioned in the communication at issue were capable, collectively, of achieving that objective.
98 In the first place, the CC submits that the acts mentioned by the Commission in the communication at issue constitute only a patchwork of isolated measures none of which have binding effect. It follows from Article 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of that appeal. Since the CC has not relied on any legal reasoning making it possible to identify an error of law committed by the General Court, its first argument must be rejected.
99 In the second place, the CC disputes the General Court’s assessments of the legal acts which the Commission considered appropriate for attaining the objectives pursued by the first proposal.
100 First, the CC claims that, contrary to the General Court’s finding, the reference to the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe of 5 November 1992 (European Treaty Series - No 148; ‘Council of Europe Charter’) is manifestly not appropriate to achieve those objectives and that none of the documents mentioned in the communication at issue refers to that Charter. However, the CC is merely repeating an argument relied on and examined before the General Court, in particular in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, without explaining how the General Court distorted the facts or erred in law in that regard, with the result that that argument must be rejected as inadmissible. An appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the General Court, including those based on facts expressly rejected by the General Court, does not satisfy the requirement to state reasons under the provisions referred to in paragraph 61 of the present judgment. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the General Court, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake (judgment of 4 October 2024, García Fernández and Others v Commission and SRB, C‑541/22 P, EU:C:2024:820, paragraph 140 and the case-law cited).
101 Second, the CC submits that the measures adopted by the Commission in implementing Article 7 of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, adopted at the General Conference of UNESCO in Paris on 20 October 2005 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2006/515/EC of 18 May 2006 (OJ 2006 L 201, p. 15), pursue only the objective of social inclusion. However, as the General Court correctly indicated in paragraphs 62 to 66 of the judgment under appeal, that convention recalls that linguistic diversity is a fundamental element of cultural diversity and reaffirms the fundamental role that education plays in the protection and promotion of cultural expressions. That argument must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
102 Third, the CC argues that the Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022 and the multilingualism and translation expert group set up under that work plan cannot contribute to the objectives of the first proposal, since that work plan does not contain a specific reference to minority languages and those languages cannot be treated in the same way as other languages. However, as the General Court explained in paragraphs 68 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, the guiding principles of the Council Conclusions on the Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022 (OJ 2018 C 460, p. 12) state that cultural and linguistic diversity is a key asset of the European Union and its protection and promotion is central to cultural policy at European level. In addition, that working group is composed of different experts from Member States which have the task of promoting literary works written in their national, but also in minority languages. That argument must therefore also be rejected as unfounded.
103 Fourth, the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on promoting common values, inclusive education and the European dimension of teaching (OJ 2018 C 195, p. 1) seeks, inter alia, to promote the common values on which the European Union is based, from an early age and at all levels of education. Furthermore, respect for minority rights, as provided for in Article 2 TEU, is among those values. In those circumstances, the General Court was entitled to find, in paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal, that that recommendation was capable of contributing, even if only in part, to the attainment of the objective pursued by the first proposal.
104 Fifth, the CC submits that the General Court erred in law in ruling out the existence of a manifest error of assessment as regards the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of languages (OJ 2019 C 189, p. 15). However, the General Court did not err in law in finding, in paragraphs 75 to 78 of the judgment under appeal, not only that minority languages were not excluded from the scope of that recommendation, but also that ‘diversity’ was mentioned among its underlying objectives.
105 Sixth, the CC argues that the General Court erred in its assessment of the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 7 October 2020, headed ‘A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation’ (COM (2020) 620 final), and in the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation (COM (2020) 621 final), given that those initiatives primarily address the area of education in the context of combating social exclusion and target only one specific minority. However, as the General Court pointed out in paragraphs 83 and 84 of the judgment under appeal, the Union’s strategic framework for Roma is not irrelevant to the objectives pursued by the first proposal, since that strategic framework included a component aimed at promoting awareness of the Roma language.
106 In the light of all of the foregoing, the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected.
107 By the sixth ground of appeal, the CC claims that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, by disregarding the fact that the Council of Europe’s European Centre for Modern Languages (‘the ECML’) and the centre for linguistic diversity proposed in the Minority SafePack initiative have totally different functions. According to its articles of association, the ECML is in essence an educational establishment focused on learning and teaching of languages and dealing with pedagogical issues. It is not capable of covering the objectives pursued by the centre for linguistic diversity proposed in the Minority SafePack initiative. Furthermore, no provision is made in the ECML’s articles of association for the ECML to promote regional and minority languages and there is no explicit commitment to show that it may contribute to the promotion of those languages. Lastly, since the European Union is not a member of the Council of Europe, no legal means could ensure the accomplishment of that task either.
108 According to the Hungarian Government, it is apparent from the additional information presented in the Minority SafePack initiative that, contrary to the approach favoured by the Commission and the General Court, the centre for linguistic diversity proposed in that initiative would have diverse and varied competences which cannot be limited to promoting language teaching and learning. That centre would conduct research and analysis activities such as, for example, the collection of objective data to help policy makers formulate courses of action and make their knowledge and expertise accessible. Those activities would cover not only education but also, more broadly, wider areas relating to language use such as, for example, public life, the media, culture, public administration and public services.
109 According to the Hungarian Government, the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraph 101 of the judgment under appeal, that the CC, supported by Hungary, had not put forward any concrete evidence calling into question the existence of the close links between the Council of Europe and the ECML.
110 Those links, it is contended, are not relevant. The Hungarian Government maintains that the Council of Europe Charter is monitored by the Committee of Experts on that charter, which draws up monitoring reports for the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. That monitoring report refers to the sources used and the partners providing the data, which do not include the ECML.
111 Concerning the evidence which the General Court considered to be lacking, the Hungarian Government states that a combined analysis of all the documents relied on by the CC and the Hungarian Government clearly shows that such links do not exist. Moreover, the Commission indicates, in paragraph 149 of the defence, that the ECML has published the monitoring report on the application of the Council of Europe Charter on its website and provides a link thereto. However, that monitoring report, which expressly lists the bodies and institutions with which the Council of Europe cooperates, does not mention the ECML.
112 According to the Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige, no instrument or programme specifically and concretely aimed at the protection of the linguistic minorities concerned has been adopted to date.
113 The German-speaking Community of Belgium submits that the General Court failed to acknowledge that, in the communication at issue, the Commission had not taken account of the objectives and tasks of the centre for linguistic diversity referred to in the third proposal. To justify its decision to reject that proposal, the Commission relied solely on the existence of the ECML, which is not dedicated specifically to the needs and interests of regional or minority languages. This underlines the Commission’s error, since ‘linguistic diversity’ and ‘language learning’ as such are not aimed at protecting and promoting regional or minority languages. When viewed in general terms, those measures are ineffective in achieving the objectives of the centre for linguistic diversity which is the subject of that proposal.
114 According to the Commission, the sixth ground of appeal must be rejected as inadmissible, since the CC merely repeats certain arguments relied on and examined before the General Court, in particular in paragraphs 96 to 107 of the judgment under appeal, without explaining how, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in law in that regard.
115 In any event, the sixth ground of appeal is, it is contended, unfounded.
116 By the sixth ground of appeal, the CC argues, in essence, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 97 of the judgment under appeal, by disregarding the fact that the ECML and the centre for linguistic diversity proposed in the Minority SafePack initiative have totally different functions.
117 By that ground, the CC merely repeats arguments already relied on and examined before the General Court, in particular in paragraphs 96 to 107 of the judgment under appeal, without demonstrating how the General Court distorted the facts or erred in law in that regard. The sixth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 100 of the present judgment.
118 According to the CC, the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof concerning the obligations imposed on providers of on-demand audiovisual media services (‘VOD services’) referred to in the communication at issue. The CC argues that it is virtually impossible for a group of citizens to obtain comprehensive statistics and other relevant information for the whole of the European Union regarding compliance with the 30% quota provided for in Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/13 or the share of works in regional and minority languages. Such information is available only to VOD service providers. In addition, pursuant to Article 13(4) of that directive, information regarding the implementation of that obligation will be given only to the Commission. It would therefore have been more appropriate to place the burden of proof on the Commission, since that would have facilitated the judicial review of the proposed measure and contributed to achieving the objectives of the Minority SafePack initiative.
119 The Hungarian Government submits that the General Court erred in law in holding, in paragraphs 143 to 145 of the judgment under appeal, that territorial restrictions on events of major importance to society were not part of the eighth proposal and that, accordingly, no manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission could be established.
120 The organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative indicated that it was necessary to amend the existing legislation in order to ensure freedom of reception of audiovisual multimedia content and to lift the ban on the broadcasting of such content.
121 Thus, according to the Hungarian Government, the issue of events of major importance to society was already an integral part of the Minority SafePack initiative, since the objective of the proposed amendment to Directive 2010/13 was to ensure freedom to provide audiovisual services and freedom of reception of content broadcast in regions where national minorities live.
122 Nowhere in Decision 2017/652 did the Commission indicate that it intended to depart from the interpretation set out in the Minority SafePack initiative; on the contrary, the wording of the proposal registered cannot be separated from, or considered independently of, the information in the annex to the Minority SafePack initiative, but should be interpreted together with that information.
123 The Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige submits that until the restrictions preventing minorities from receiving audiovisual content produced in other Member States are lifted, such Union citizens belonging to linguistic minorities will not be treated equally to others and will not be able to exercise their fundamental rights guaranteed by the treaties. There is no doubt about the competence of the European Union to intervene in order to remove obstacles to the freedom to provide audiovisual media services, owing to the very existence of Directive 2010/13, and the measure concerned would only require the implementation of existing legislation.
124 The Commission disputes those arguments.
125 By the seventh ground of appeal, the CC argues, in essence, that the General Court erred in law by disregarding the rules applicable to the burden of proof when it examined whether the Commission had made a manifest error of assessment as regards the assessment of the eighth proposal. In particular, the CC contests the statement in paragraph 138 of the judgment under appeal that the CC had not put forward any specific evidence calling into question the Commission’s assessment that the obligation on VOD service providers to offer at least a 30% share of European works in their catalogues and to give prominence to those works, provided for in Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/13 and referred to in the communication at issue, was capable of contributing to improving cultural diversity and giving access to a wider cross-border range of audiovisual content, even in the absence of any more specific requirements as to the origin or language of the European works in question.
126 However, paragraph 138 forms part of the more general assessment, carried out in paragraphs 127 to 144 of the judgment under appeal, of the fourth part of the second plea at first instance, alleging several manifest errors of assessment by the Commission as regards the eighth proposal. Taken in isolation, the considerations set out in paragraph 138 of the judgment under appeal have no bearing on the operative part of that judgment.
127 In paragraphs 132 to 137 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court held that the Commission had not made an error of assessment in that regard.
128 The General Court found that the Commission had indicated the information on the basis of which the 30% quota provided for in Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/13 was capable of contributing to promoting the proportion of regional and minority languages and thus to improving cultural diversity, since the reception of audiovisual content has already been achieved throughout the European Union, and therefore also in regions where national minorities reside.
129 Moreover, by its arguments, the CC, using the pretext of an alleged error of law relating to the burden of proof, is in reality seeking to obtain a fresh assessment of that evidence, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings.
130 The seventh ground of appeal must therefore be rejected.
131 The CC, supported, in essence, by the Hungarian Government, argues that by holding, in paragraphs 15 to 29 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission had not failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788, the General Court erred in law. The Commission should have carried out a comprehensive assessment of the documentation provided, that is to say, not only the proposals of the Minority SafePack initiative, but also all the explanations and the written and oral clarifications provided by the CC at the meeting of 5 February 2020 and the public hearing mentioned in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the present judgment, respectively. The CC further submits that the General Court, by rejecting the line of argument put forward at first instance concerning the failure to state reasons in the communication at issue concerning the first, second, fourth and sixth proposals, based its decision on a misinterpretation of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons.
132 According to the Commission, the eighth ground of appeal is in part inadmissible and in part unfounded.
133 It must be stated that, using the pretext of an alleged error of law on the part of the General Court in the interpretation of the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 15(2) of Regulation 2019/788, the CC is in fact asking the Court of Justice to carry out a fresh assessment of the grounds for complaint raised at first instance against the reasoning of the decision at issue, which does not come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in appeal proceedings, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 62 of the present judgment. The eighth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected as inadmissible.
134 By the first part of the ninth ground of appeal, the CC submits that the General Court relied on contradictory grounds in the judgment under appeal and thus erred in law. On the one hand, the General Court held, in paragraphs 42 to 45 of that judgment, that it was in the light of the objective pursued by the first proposal and the legal bases referred to by the CC as regards that proposal that it was necessary to assess whether the communication at issue was vitiated by errors. On the other hand, the General Court stated that that objective could be achieved by means of other existing instruments and by ongoing initiatives with different legal bases than those referred to by the CC.
135 The Commission disputes that line of argument.
136 The General Court held that the scope of the first proposal, as put forward by the organisers of the Minority SafePack initiative and determined in Decision 2017/652, concerned a proposal for a Council Recommendation on the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union, based on Article 165(4) and Article 167(5) TFEU.
137 It was apparent from all the information provided by the CC at the various stages of the Minority SafePack initiative procedure that that proposal primarily concerned the areas of education and culture. It is also in that context that the communication at issue presented a substantial set of measures that the Commission considered relevant for the attainment of those objectives.
138 The fact that those measures consisted, inter alia, of various instruments of international law or instruments with different legal bases from those referred to in that proposal can in no way affect the assessment carried out by the General Court in the judgment under appeal, which was focused on the specific actions within those instruments that concern the protection and promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity in the area of education and culture.
139 The first part of the ninth ground of appeal must therefore be rejected.
140 According to the CC, the General Court did not take into consideration its argument that the Action Plan for Integration and Inclusion 2021-2027 was not appropriate to achieve the objectives of the sixth proposal, since that action plan did not address the situation of stateless minorities. Similarly, the document supporting that argument was not taken into account by the General Court, which therefore erred in law in the judgment under appeal.
141 According to the Commission, the second part of the ninth ground of appeal must be declared inadmissible on the ground that the CC is merely repeating an argument relied on and examined before the General Court without challenging the judgment under appeal as regards that action plan. In any event, that second part should be rejected as unfounded.
142 By the second part of the ninth ground of appeal, the CC merely repeats the line of argument put forward at first instance, without explaining how the General Court distorted the facts or erred in law in that regard. Consequently, that second part must be rejected as inadmissible, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 100 of the present judgment.
143 Since none of the grounds of appeal raised by the CC has been upheld, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.
144 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
145 Since the CC has been unsuccessful and the Commission has applied for costs, the CC must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
146 Under Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal has not been brought by an intervener at first instance, he may not be ordered to pay costs in the appeal proceedings unless he participated in the written or oral part of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. Where an intervener at first instance takes part in the proceedings, the Court may decide that he shall bear his own costs.
147 Since Hungary has taken part in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, it must be held, in the circumstances of the present case, that it must bear its own costs.
148 Under Article 140(3) of its Rules of Procedure, which is also applicable to appeal proceedings pursuant to Article 184(1) thereof, the Court may order an intervener other than those referred to in the preceding paragraphs of Article 140 to bear his own costs.
149 Since the German-speaking Community of Belgium and the Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige have taken part in the proceedings before the Court, it must be held, in the circumstances of the present case, that they must bear their own costs. 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the Citizens’ Committee of the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; 3. Orders Hungary to bear its own costs; 4. Orders the Deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft Belgiens (German-speaking Community of Belgium) and the Autonome Provinz Bozen Südtirol - Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano Alto Adige (Autonomous Province of Bolzano - South Tyrol / Alto Adige) to bear their own costs.