21.7.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/11

(Case C-263/14)

2014/C 235/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola, M. Allik, agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—annul Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania (1);

—order that the effects of Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 be maintained until it is replaced;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.

The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tanzania also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, thus covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.

Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded under the substantive legal bases of Articles 37 TEU and 82 and 87 TFEU, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU.

For this reason, the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.

Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at all stages of negotiations and conclusion of the Agreement.

Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

(1) OJ L 108, p. 1