Language of document :

Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-391/17, Romania v Commission

(Case C-899/19 P)

Language of the case: Romanian


Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L. Liţu, and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

allow the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court in Case T-391/17, give judgment in Case T-391/17 upholding the action for annulment of Decision (EU) 2017/652


allow the appeal, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court in Case T-391/17 and refer Case T-391/17 back to the General Court of the European Union, which, upon fresh consideration of the matter, should uphold the action for annulment and annul Decision (EU) 2017/652;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of the provisions of the Treaties of the European Union relating to the competences of the European Union

The General Court erred in law when, in breach of the principle of conferral of powers enshrined in Article 5(2) of the Treaty on European Union, it equated the values laid down in Article 2 TEU with a specific action/objective within the framework of the competence of the European Union and called on the Commission to submit specific acts whose main objective is respect for the rights of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and for rich cultural and linguistic diversity.

Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU

The General Court misinterpreted the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in so far as concerns the obligation on the part of the Commission to state reasons, erroneously holding that that obligation was met, in the light of the facts of the case, in a situation in which the Commission failed to set out the legal considerations of fundamental importance in the overall scheme of Decision (EU) 2017/652 and, in addition, substantially modified the position it had taken previously, without specifying what subsequent developments justified that change in position.

Procedural irregularities such as to cause prejudice to the interests of the appellant

As a result of the fact that, during the oral stage of the procedure in Case T-391/17, the discussions focused, at the behest of the General Court, solely on aspects relating to the admissibility of the action for annulment, while in the judgment given, that court addressed only aspects concerning the substance of the case, the proper conduct of the proceedings was compromised.