10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/26

(Case C-134/14)

2014/C 175/32

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Mölls, and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

—Annul Council Directive 2013/62/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (1);

—Maintain the effects of Directive 2013/62/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;

—Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/62/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.

The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Article 155(2) TFEU.

It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty and by the historical origins of that article.

(1) OJ 2013 L 353, p. 7.