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
EN
(Case C-687/15)
(2016/C 068/32)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher, L. Nicolae, agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
—annul the Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg;
—order the Council to bear the costs.
By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the ‘Council Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU)’ adopted on 26 October 2015 at the 3419th meeting of the Council in Luxembourg.
The Application is founded on a single plea in law namely that in adopting the Conclusions on the World Radiocommunication Conference 2015 (WRC-15) of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) instead of a Decision as proposed by the Commission, the Council has violated Article 218(9) TFEU which applies to the adoption of the position to be taken on behalf of the Union at the WRC-15.
In this regard, the Commission argues, first, that Article 218 (9) TFEU applies to positions to be adopted on the Union's behalf in a situation as the one at hand where the European Union has a status in the international organisation concerned, namely that of a Sector member which, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the ITU Constitution, provides the European Union certain rights of activities in the organisation.
Second, the Commission argues that the revisions of the Radio Regulations for which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken in accordance with Article 218(9) TFEU produce legal effects in the sense of that provision both under the applicable international legal framework and under the relevant Union rules.
Third, as regards the other conditions for the application of Article 218(9) TFEU, the Commission argues that these are equally fulfilled in the present case as the organs of ITU are bodies ‘set up by an agreement’ and that the acts in relation to which the Commission has proposed the adoption of a position to be taken do not ‘[supplement] or [amend] the institutional framework of the agreement’.