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 T-306/18: Action brought on 16 May 2018 — Hungary v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018TN0306

62018TN0306

May 16, 2018
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

(Case T-306/18)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and G. Tornyai, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2018/262 of 14 February 2018 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled: ‘We are a welcoming Europe, let us help!’. (1)

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b), (c) and (d), and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (2)

The first and second parts of the European citizens’ initiative registered under the contested decision are manifestly outside the scope of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. For that reason, the registration of the initiative infringes Article 4(2)(b) and Article 4(3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. Furthermore, the first part of the initiative is abusive and, consequently, is also contrary to Article 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011. As regards the second part, it can be argued that it can lead to a result contrary to the values of the EU established in Article 2 TEU, and is therefore also contrary to Article 4(2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011.

2.Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The contested decision does not satisfy the requirements relating to the obligation to state reasons, and therefore infringes the obligation to state reasons established in Article 296 TFEU and the right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In essence, the contested decision does not give any indication of the grounds on which the Commission found that, as regards the third part of the initiative, there is an appropriate legal basis and legislative power of the EU which meets the requirement established in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 relating to the registration.

*

(1) OJ 2018 L 49, p. 64.

(2) OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 2011 L 330, p. 47, and in OJ 2012 L 94, p. 49.

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