- 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-401/12 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2012 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 June 2012 in Case T-396/09 Vereniging Milieudefensie, Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0401
62012CN0401
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 9/25
—
(Case C-401/12 P)
2013/C 9/42
Language of the case: Dutch
Parties
Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and K. Michoel, Agents)
Other parties to the proceedings:
Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht, European Commission,
Kingdom of the Netherlands,
European Parliament
Form of order sought
The Council claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of 14 June 2012 in Case T-396/09;
—dismiss the action of the applicants at first instance in its entirety;
—order the applicants at first instance jointly and severally to pay the Council’s costs in the present case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Council takes the view that the judgment of the General Court in the abovementioned case is vitiated by two errors of law. The Council is of the view that the General Court did not correctly interpret and apply the ‘Nakajima’ (1) and ‘Fediol’ (2) case-law. Consequently, the Council is of the view that the General Court erred in finding that it could review the legality of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (3) in the light of the Aarhus Convention (4) on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Furthermore, the Council is of the view that the choice made by the legislature in Regulation No 1367/2006 is any event fully consistent with the Aarhus Convention. In this respect, the General Court’s interpretation of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention is incorrect, in so far as the General Court disregards the discretion afforded to the contracting parties.
The Council therefore requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-396/09, and to give final judgment in the matter by dismissing the action of the applicants at first instance in its entirety.
—
(1) Case C-69/89 Nakajima v Council [1991] ECR I-2169.
(2) Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1825.
(3) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
(4) Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).
—