25.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 186/29

(Case T-215/11)

2011/C 186/54

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Supreme Administration of Public Servants’ Unions (ADEDI) (Athens, Greece) S. Papaspiros (Athens, Greece) and I. Iliopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Tsipra, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—annul the Council Decision of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15) under No 2011/57/EU;

—order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 20 December 2010 amending Decision 2010/320/EU addressed to Greece with a view to reinforcing and deepening fiscal surveillance and giving notice to Greece to take measures for the deficit reduction judged necessary to remedy the situation of excessive deficit, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 26, p. 15) under No 2011/57/EU.

The applicants advance the following grounds in support of their pleas.

First, the applicants submit that the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by the Treaties were exceeded in the adoption of the contested decision. More specifically, Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaties introduce the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. In addition, under Article 5(2) of the Treaties it is expressly provided that any competence not conferred by the Member States on the European Union remains with the Member States. Pursuant to Article 126 et seq. of the Treaties, the measures which may be decided upon by the Council under the excessive deficit procedure and included in its decisions cannot be prescribed specifically, explicitly and without room for deviation, since that competence is not conferred upon the Council by the Treaties.

Second, the applicants maintain that the legal basis relied upon for the adoption of the contested decision is Articles 126(9) and 136 of the Treaty. However, the contested measure was adopted in a manner that exceeded the powers of the European Commission and the Council conferred by those articles, simply as a measure implementing a bilateral agreement between the 15 Member States of the Euro zone, which decided to grant the bilateral loans, and Greece. Such a competence for adoption of a measure on the part of the Council is neither recognised nor prescribed by the Treaties.

Third, the applicants maintain that, in introducing reductions to family allowances and means-testing of them, the contested decision affects acquired property rights of the applicants and was accordingly adopted in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights