- 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-161/20: Action brought on 14 April 2020 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0161
62020CN0161
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
22.6.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 209/18
(Case C-161/20)
(2020/C 209/25)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, E. Georgieva, S. L. Kalėda, W. Mölls, Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—annul the Council decision (1), contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels, with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission;
—maintain the effects of the decision;
—order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action for annulment brought by the Commission concerns a Council decision, contained in the act of Coreper of 5 February 2020, endorsing the submission to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) concerning the introduction of life cycle guidelines to estimate well-to-tank greenhouse gas emissions of sustainable alternative fuels (the GHG submission), with a view to its transmission by the Presidency of the Council to the IMO on behalf of the Member States and the Commission.
The Commission relies, in support of its action, on two grounds.
The Commission considers first that the decision of the Council breaches the exclusive competence of the Union under Article 3(2) TFEU. Indeed, the Union has exclusive competence in the area addressed by the GHG submission within the meaning of Article 3(2) TFEU, because that area is covered to a large extent by the common rules applicable to intra-EU situations within the meaning of the consistent case-law of the Court of Justice.
The Commission considers secondly that the decision of the Council breaches the institutional prerogatives of the Commission under Article 17(1) TEU, because only the Commission is entitled to act on behalf of the Union and to ensure the Union’s external representation.
Council document ST 6287/20 of 24 February 2020.