- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-425/13: Action brought on 24 July 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0425
62013CN0425
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
21.9.2013
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 274/17
(Case C-425/13)
2013/C 274/29
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul Article 2, second sentence, and Section A of the Addendum/Annex to the Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on linking the EU emissions trading scheme with an emissions trading system in Australia, or, in the alternative,
—annul the Council Decision and to maintain the effects of the contested decision in case it is totally annulled, and
—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU, 218(2) to (4) TFEU and 295 TFEU and the principle of institutional balance. The Commission submits that the Council infringed Article 218 TFEU by imposing unilaterally upon the Commission a detailed procedure that creates ex novo powers for the Council and obligations upon the Commission that are not based in that provision. The Council has also infringed Article 13(2) TEU, in conjunction with Article 218(4) TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, because the Council has expanded its powers conferred on it by the Treaties to the detriment of the Commission and the European Parliament
Second plea: breach of Articles 13(2) TEU and 218 TFEU, and the principle of institutional balance, since the contested Decision provides that the detailed negotiating positions of the Union shall be established by the Special Committee or the Council. Article 218(4) TFEU gives only a consultative role to the Special Committee.