Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/17

(Case C-19/23)

(2023/C 104/22)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Maertens, M.P. Brøchner Jespersen and J. Farver Kronborg, Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims primarily that the Court should:

—annul Directive (EU) 2022/2041 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union.

—order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

In the alternative, the Government claims that the Court should:

—annul Article 4(1)(d) of Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union.

—annul Article 4(2) of Directive (EU) 2022/2041 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on adequate minimum wages in the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the principal claim, the Government claims in the first place that, in adopting the contested directive, the defendants infringed the principle of the conferral of powers and acted in breach of Article 153(5) TEU. The contested directive interferes directly with the determination of the level of pay in the Member States and concerns the right of association, which is excluded from the competence of the EU legislature pursuant to Article 153(5) TFEU.

In support of its principal claim, the Government submits, in the second place, that the contested directive could not validly be adopted on the basis of Article 153(1)(b) TFEU. That is because the Directive pursues both the objective set out in Article 153(1)(b) TFEU and the objective set out in Article 153(1)(f) TFEU. The latter objective is not ancillary to the first and presupposes the use of a decision-making procedure different from that followed when the contested directive was adopted (see Article 153(2) TFEU). The two decision-making procedures are incompatible since the adoption of acts under Article 153(1)(f) TFEU — in contrast to those adopted under Article 153(1)(b) TFEU — requires unanimity (see Article 153(2) TFEU).

In support of its claim put forward in the alternative, the Government submits that, in adopting Article 4(1)(d) and Article 4(2) of the contested directive, the defendants infringed the principle of the conferral of powers and acted in breach of Article 153(5) TFEU. Those provisions interfere directly with the determination of the level of pay in the Member States and concern the right of association, which is excluded from the competence of the EU legislature pursuant to Article 153(5) TFEU.

(1) OJ 2022 L 275, p. 33.