- 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-114/12: Action brought on 1 March 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0114
62012CN0114
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 138/5
(Case C-114/12)
(2012/C 138/09)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, J. Samnadda, Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on the participation of the European Union and its Member States in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations
—order the Council to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea: Infringement of Articles 2(2) and 3(2) TFUE, because the Council has considered that the matter is one of shared competence, and has authorised Member States or an Institution other than the Commission to negotiate the agreement, in a matter of exclusive competence. The future Council of Europe Convention may affect or alter the scope of EU Directives dealing with the rights of broadcasting organisations, as well as that of EU Directives on intellectual property law generally. The future Convention will be based on the existing EU acquis, and will inevitably lead to the amendment of the EU Directives should a higher degree of protection be granted to broadcasting organisations within the Council of Europe.
Second plea: Breach of the procedure and the conditions to authorise negotiations of international agreements by the Union. It is only the Council (and not the Council acting jointly with Member States) which is competent to authorise negotiations by the Union.
Third plea: Violation of the voting rules in the Council. By adopting the contested Decision, the Council violated Article 218(8) pursuant to which the Council shall act by qualified majority.
Forth plea: Breach of the objectives of the Treaties and the principle of sincere cooperation. The Council, by acting jointly with the Member States, undermines the standing of the Union and weakens the institutional framework of the Union.