EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-789/19: Action brought on 14 November 2019 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019TN0789

62019TN0789

November 14, 2019
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

10.2.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/76

(Case T-789/19)

(2020/C 45/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tom Moerenhout (Humbeek, Belgium) and six other applicants (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

annul the contested decision;

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 6390 final of 4 September 2019 refusing to register the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’ (OJ 2019 L 241, p. 12), the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation 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) in so far as the Commission distorted the proposed citizens’ initiative;

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision;

3.Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission took the view that the action envisaged by the proposed citizens’ initiative could be adopted only on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, whereas that action clearly fell within the common commercial policy;

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission ignored other legal bases to which the ECI proposal clearly relates, namely Article 43(2) TFEU and Article 114 TFEU.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia