Action brought on 14 March 2013 - European Commission v Council of the European Union

(Case C-125/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, A. Bouquet, A. Szmytkowska, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks,

to maintain the effects of the annulled Council Regulation for a reasonable time after the judgment, that is to say, for a maximum of one full calendar year starting on January 1 of the year after the judgment, and

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action the Commission requests the Court to annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, while maintaining the legal effects of that Regulation for a reasonable time after the judgment in the present case, that is to say a maximum of one full calendar year starting on January 1 after the judgment.

The Commission's application is based on the following three pleas:

In its First Plea on the error in law concerning the legal basis of the contested Regulation (violation of Article 43(2) TFEU), the Commission submits that the Council committed an error in splitting the Commission's proposal and adopting a part of it on the basis of Article 43(3) TFEU as it should have been based in its entirety, as the Commission had proposed, on Article 43(2). The contested Regulation contains provisions which do not fall within the scope of Article 43(3), which can only provide a basis for measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.

In the Second Plea on the consequential error in law concerning the decision making procedure and the institutional prerogatives of the European Parliament to participate in the ordinary legislative procedure and of the European Economic and Social Committee to be duly consulted (violation of Articles 294 and 43(2) TFEU), the Commission submits that the part of the proposal concerned was adopted by the Council acting alone, while the European Parliament did not participate in its adoption as it would have done under the ordinary legislative procedure, and the European Economic and Social Committee was not adequately consulted.

Finally, in the Third Plea on the adoption of the contested Regulation without a Commission proposal or the fundamental change in the nature of the Commission's proposal (fr. dénaturation) (violation of Article 17 TEU and Article 43(3) TFEU), the Commission demonstrates that the splitting of the proposal by the Council and the consequential change of legal basis of one part of it has resulted in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the Commission's proposal, in violation of the Commission's exclusive right of initiative.

____________

¹ - OJ L 352, p. 10