EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-883/24: Action brought on 19 December 2024 – European Parliament v Council of the European Union

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0883

62024CN0883

December 19, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
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

Official Journal of the European Union

C series

C/2025/899

17.2.2025

(Case C-883/24)

(C/2025/899)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, D. Moore, M. Peternel, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 (1) of 8 October 2024 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities, in so far as Article 4(1) provides for a decision ‘by unanimity’;

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 31(2) TEU

The Parliament submits that, in Article 4(1) of the contested decision, the Council confers an implementing power on itself to later establish and amend the list in the Annex, which is otherwise blank, thereby operationalising the restrictive measures in question in respect of specific natural and legal persons, entities and bodies. Article 31(2) TEU explicitly provides that certain acts shall be adopted ‘by qualified majority’, notably ‘any decision implementing a decision defining a Union action or position’. By including the words ‘by unanimity’ in Article 4, the Council thus acted in infringement of the express wording of Article 31(2) TEU.

2.Second plea in law, alleging non-compliance with Article 40 TEU

The Parliament submits that the contested decision did not comply with Article 40 TEU, in so far as the words ‘by unanimity’ were added to Article 4(1) of the contested decision. The illegal procedural hurdle introduced by Council for itself under Article 4(1) of the contested decision adversely affects the subsequent decision-making procedure under Article 215 TFEU because the parallelism between the conditions under the CFSP in the TEU and the TFEU, both requiring qualified majority voting, is thereby set aside. The change from qualified majority voting to unanimity in the CFSP decision adopted on the basis of Article 29 TEU thus affects the balance foreseen in the Treaties for this case and thereby changes the conditions for the adoption of the Regulation to be adopted under Article 215 TFEU.

(1) OJ L, 2024/2643.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/899/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia