Action brought on 11 October 2012 - Anagnostakis v Commission

(Case T-450/12)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Alexios Anagnostakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 September 2012 by which it rejected registration of the proposed citizens' initiative entitled 'ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY';

order the Commission to register the abovementioned initiative in accordance with the law, and order any other measure required by law;

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

The first plea in law is derived from Article 122 TFEU.

The applicant maintains that the European Commission is unjustified in contending that it lacks competence to submit a proposal for the adoption of a legal measure relating to the proposed initiative concerning establishment of the 'principle of the state of necessity'. Under Article 122(1) TFEU (ex Article 100 EC), the Commission proposes (and the Council decides upon), in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, the measures appropriate to the economic situation. Such measures include the laying down of the principle of the state of necessity in the treaties of the European Union and the adoption of measures and policies to that effect.

The second plea in law is derived from Article 136(1) TFEU.

The applicant maintains that the Commission is unjustified in considering in its decision that Article 136(1) TFEU might be used as a legal basis only where the measures relate to the strengthening of budgetary discipline and are limited to that. Under Article 136(1)(b) TFEU, the measures proposed can also relate to the setting out of economic policy guidelines for the Member States in question. The principle of the state of necessity is such a guideline in the carrying out of that policy.

The third plea in law is derived from Article 136(1) TFEU.

The applicant submits that the Commission is unjustified in considering in its decision that Article 136(1) does not empower the European Union to take the place of the Member States in the exercise of their budgetary sovereignty and of the functions which are related to State income and expenditure. The Council can adopt, under the procedure provided for in Articles 121 TFEU to 126 TFEU, measures for the Member States whose currency is the euro. That is clear from Article 136(1). That article does not contain a restriction, in the application of measures, deriving from the supposed budgetary sovereignty of the Member States.

The fourth plea in law is derived from Article 222 TFEU.

The applicant submits that the Commission's decision is in direct conflict with the solidarity clause set out in Article 222 TFEU.

____________