15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/26

(Case C-660/13)

2014/C 45/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Elera, E. Finnegan, P. Mahnič Bruni, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution;

—order that the effects of the decision be maintained until it is replaced; and

—order the Defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.By means of the application the Council has requested, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission's decision C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013 on the signature of the Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Swiss financial contribution (the ‘contested decision’)(1).

The contested decision, by which the Commission empowered two of its members to sign the abovementioned Memorandum without prior authorisation by the Council, is considered by the Council to be illegal because it constitutes a violation of fundamental principles of Union law enshrined in the Treaties. More specifically, the action for annulment is based on two pleas:

1.The Commission's decision infringes the principle of distribution of powers contained in Article 13(2) TEU and, consequently, the principle of institutional balance.

2.The Commission's course of action leading to the adoption of the decision and the signature of the Addendum infringes the principle of sincere cooperation contained in Article 13(2) TEU.

3.As regards the first plea, by signing alone the Addendum to the MoU with Switzerland, on behalf of the Union and without prior authorisation by the Council, the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of distribution of powers set out in Article 13(2) TEU as it has taken upon itself the power to decide on the policy of the Union which is a power of the Council pursuant to Article 16 TEU, consequently breaching the principle of institutional balance.

4.As regards the second plea, the Council considers that the course of action of the Commission has infringed the principle of sincere cooperation on four counts: 1) by knowingly impinging on the powers that the Council enjoys pursuant to Article 16 TEU and therefore acting in breach of the principle of distribution of powers of Article 13(2) TEU and consequently of the principle of institutional balance; 2) by knowingly and unilaterally disregarding the role of Member States in the matter, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers of Article 4(1) TEU; 3) by intentionally acting in a manner which rendered ineffectual the efforts of the Council to correct the situation created by the Commission; and 4) by knowingly acting in a manner which compromised the principle of unity in the external representation of the Union.

Commission document C(2013) 6355 final of 3 October 2013