- 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-284/25 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2025 by Asociația Inițiativa pentru Justiție against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2025 in Case T-1126/23, Asociația Inițiativa pentru Justiție v Commission
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62025CN0284
62025CN0284
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/2025/3504
7.7.2025
(Case C-284/25 P)
(C/2025/3504)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: Asociația Inițiativa pentru Justiție (represented by: V.-D. Oanea, avocat, C. Zatschler, Senior Counsel, and G. Gilmore, Barrister-at-Law)
Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the order under appeal;
—reject the plea of inadmissibility, declare the application admissible and refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the substance;
—in the alternative, declare that the appellant is directly concerned by the Commission Decision (EU) 2023/1786 (1) of 15 September 2023 repealing Decision 2006/928/EC establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the question of whether the appellant is individually concerned by the contested decision or to join that question to the substance; and
—order the Commission to bear the appellants’ costs in relation to the plea of inadmissibility as well as the appeal, and bear its own costs in relation thereto, irrespective of the outcome of the case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three grounds of appeal.
First, the General Court erred in law in failing to recognize the standing of the appellant, acting in its own name.
Second, the General Court erred in law in its failure to recognize the standing of the members of the appellant, whose interests are represented by the appellant.
Third, the General Court erred in failing to interpret Article 263(4) TFEU in light of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, as it follows from Articles 19(1) TEU and 47 of the Charter, and in light of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the ECtHR’) KlimaSeniorinnen jurisprudence [Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland (CE:ECHR:2024:0409JUD005360020)]
—
(1) OJ 2023 L 229, p. 94.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3504/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—