Judgments nº T-646/13 of The General Court, February 03, 2017

• Resolution Date: February 03, 2017
• Issuing Organization: The General Court
• Decision Number: T-646/13

(Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Protection of national and linguistic minorities and strengthening of cultural and linguistic diversity in the European Union - Refusal of registration - Commission manifestly lacking legislative powers - Obligation to state reasons - Article 4(2)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011) In Case T-646/13,

Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe, represented initially by E. Johansson, J. Lund and C. Lund, and subsequently by E. Johansson and T. Hieber, lawyers,

applicant,

supported by

Hungary, represented by M. Fehér, A. Pálfy and G. Szima, acting as Agents,

intervener,

v

European Commission, represented by H. Krämer, acting as Agent,

defendant,

supported by

Slovak Republic, represented by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent,

and by

Romania, represented by R. Radu, R. Haţieganu, D. Bulancea and A. Wellman, acting as Agents,

interveners,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),

composed of H. Kanninen, President, I. Pelikánová and E. Buttigieg (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: S. Bukšek Tomac, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure and further to the hearing on 16 September 2016,

gives the following

Judgment

Background to the dispute

1 On 15 July 2013, the applicant, Bürgerausschuss für die Bürgerinitiative Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe, consisting of Mr Hans Heinrich Hansen, Mr Hunor Kelemen, Mr Karl-Heinz Lambertz, Ms Jannewietske Annie De Vries, Mr Valentin Inzko, Mr Alois Durnwalder and Ms Anke Spoorendonk, submitted to the European Commission the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack - one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (‘the proposed ECI’), the aim of which was, according to the minimum information provided pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), read in conjunction with Annex II to that regulation (‘the required information’), to call upon ‘the EU to improve the protection of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union’. It follows from that information provided as part of the required information that the objectives pursued by the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) consist of calling upon the European Union ‘to adopt a set of legal acts to improve the protection of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities and strengthen cultural and linguistic diversity [within its territory]’ and that those acts ‘shall include policy actions in the areas of regional and minority languages, education and culture, regional policy, participation, equality, audiovisual and other media content, and also regional (state) support’.

2 It follows, moreover, from the more detailed information that was annexed to the information provided as part of the required information (‘the additional information’) in accordance with the final paragraph of Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011 that the aim of the proposal is to secure the adoption of a series of legal acts listed and described in sections 2 to 7 of the additional information. In section 8 of that information, headed ‘Safeguard clause’, the organisers note that, for each of the proposals for legal acts concerned, the proposed ECI suggests, by way of indication, the legal basis and the type of act to be adopted that seem the most appropriate to them, that each of those proposals should be examined separately and that the inadmissibility of one or more of them should not lead to the inadmissibility of the other proposals that come within the area of competence of the Commission.

3 By its Decision C(2013) 5969 final of 13 September 2013 (‘the contested decision’), the Commission refused to register the proposed ECI on the ground that it manifestly fell outside the powers enabling the Commission to submit a proposal for the adoption of a legal act of the European Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.

Procedure and forms of order sought

4 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 November 2013, the applicant brought the present action.

5 The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul the contested decision;

- order the Commission to pay the costs;

6 The Commission contends that the Court should:

- dismiss the action as unfounded;

- order the applicant to pay the costs.

7 By order of the President of the First Chamber of 4 September 2014, Hungary was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant, and the Slovak Republic and Romania were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.

Law

8 In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law alleging, first, infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and in the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 and, secondly, infringement of Article 11 TEU, of the first paragraph of Article 24 TFEU and of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011.

9 The applicant, supported by Hungary, criticises the Commission on the ground that it merely stated in the contested decision, without further specification, that some of the themes on which it was invited, in the annex to the proposed ECI, to submit proposals for a legal act of the European Union fell within the framework of its powers to then conclude that the registration of the proposed ECI must be refused in its entirety on the ground that the partial registration of a proposed ECI is not provided for in Regulation No 211/2011. Respect for the obligation to state reasons is, it submits, all the more important because, first, the ECI is a means of democratic participation of citizens in the legislative process that should be accessible and easy to implement and, secondly, the organisers of ECI proposals...