Appeal brought on 27 January 2022 by Romania against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 10 November 2021 in Case T-495/19 Romania v Commission

(Case C-54/22 P)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Appellant: Romania (represented by: E. Gane, L. Liţu and L.-E. Baţagoi, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Hungary

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and adjudicate in Case T-495/19, upholding the application for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721;

or, alternatively, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-495/19, in so far as it concerns the analysis relating to the plea based on the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, and refer Case T-495/19 back to the General Court so that the latter may adjudicate afresh, uphold the application for annulment and annul Commission Decision (EU) 2019/721;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, Romania relies on a single ground, alleging the infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011, in conjunction with Article 5(2) TEU.

Romania submits that the General Court erred in law, thereby infringing the provisions in question.

(i) First, the General Court so erred by its interpretation concerning the conditions in which the Commission could refuse to register a European citizens’ initiative – in particular when it found that such a refusal may occur only where the possibility for the Commission of submitting a proposal for an EU legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties may be totally excluded.

However, such an initiative, it is submitted, manifestly falls outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for an EU legal act if, following a legal assessment in abstracto of the measures proposed, there are serious doubts that such measures could be adopted on the basis of the Treaties.

(ii) Secondly, the General Court erred by its interpretation concerning the possibility for the Commission of registering a proposed European citizens’ initiative with reservations or conditionally.

However, in such a situation, the Commission is required to refer to all the mandatory and optional information provided by the organisers and cannot disregard it even in part.

____________