European Parliament v Council of the European Union.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62015CJ0014
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2016:715
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Docket Number: C-116/15,C-14/15
• Date: 22 September 2016
• Procedure Type: Recours en annulation - fondé

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

22 September 2016 (*1 )

‛Actions for annulment — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Automated data exchange — Registration of vehicles — Dactyloscopic data — Legal framework applicable following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Secondary legal basis — Distinction between legislative acts and implementing measures — Consultation of the European Parliament — Initiative of a Member State or of the European Commission — Voting rules’

In Joined Cases C‑14/15 and C‑116/15,

ACTIONS for annulment under Article 263 TFEU, brought on 14 January 2015 and 6 March 2015 respectively,

European Parliament, represented by F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

Council of the European Union, represented by M.-M. Joséphidès, K. Michoel and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents,

defendant,

supported by

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents,

and

Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, N. Otte Widgren, E. Karlsson and L. Swedenborg, acting as Agents,

interveners,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. Šváby, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan and M. Vilaras, Judges,

Advocate General: N. Wahl,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 June 2016,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its applications in Cases C‑14/15 and C‑116/15, the European Parliament seeks the annulment, in the first case, of Council Decision 2014/731/EU of 9 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Malta (OJ 2014 L 302, p. 56), Council Decision 2014/743/EU of 21 October 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to vehicle registration data (VRD) in Cyprus (OJ 2014 L 308, p. 100) and of Council Decision 2014/744/EU of 21 October 2014, on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to Vehicle Registration Data (VRD) in Estonia (OJ 2014 L 308, p. 102) and, in the second case, of Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28) (together, ‘the contested decisions’).

Legal context

The Prüm Treaty

2 Article 34(2) of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Austria on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration, signed in Prüm (Germany) on 27 May 2005 (‘the Prüm Treaty’), is worded as follows: ‘The supply of personal data provided for under this Convention may not take place until the provisions of this chapter have entered into force in the national law of the territories of the Contracting Parties involved in such supply. The Committee of Ministers shall decide in accordance with Article 43 whether the conditions have been met.’

3 Article 43(1) of that Treaty provides: ‘The Contracting Parties shall set up a Committee made up of ministers from the Contracting Parties. The Committee of Ministers shall take the necessary decisions on the implementation and application of this Convention. Decisions of the Committee of Ministers shall be taken by all Contracting Parties on the basis of unanimity.’

EU law

Council Decision 2008/615/JHA

4 Recital 1 of Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1), is worded as follows: ‘Following the entry into force of [the Prüm Treaty] this initiative is submitted … with the aim of incorporating the substance of the provisions of the Prüm Treaty into the legal framework of the European Union.’

5 Article 1 of that decision provides: ‘By means of this Decision, the Member States intend to step up cross-border cooperation in matters covered by Title VI of the [EU] Treaty, particularly the exchange of information between authorities responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. To this end, this Decision contains rules in the following areas: (a) provisions on the conditions and procedure for the automated transfer of DNA profiles, dactyloscopic data and certain national vehicle registration data (Chapter 2); …’

6 Chapter 6 of Decision 2008/615 contains general provisions on data protection in the context of the exchange of information provided for by that decision.

7 Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 25 of Decision 2008/615, which features in Chapter 6, provide as follows: ‘2. The supply of personal data provided for under this Decision may not take place until the provisions of this Chapter have been implemented in the national law of the territories of the Member States involved in such supply. The Council shall unanimously decide whether this condition has been met. 3. Paragraph 2 shall not apply to those Member States where the supply of personal data as provided for in this Decision has already started pursuant to the [Prüm Treaty].’

8 Article 33 of that decision, entitled ‘Implementing measures’, provides that the Council, acting by a qualified majority and after consulting the Parliament, must adopt the measures necessary to implement that decision at the level of the Union.

Council Decision 2008/616/JHA

9 Article 20 of Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615 (OJ 2008 L 210, p. 12), is worded as follows: ‘1. The Council shall take a decision as referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision [2008/615] on the basis of an evaluation report which shall be based on a questionnaire. 2. With respect to the automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision [2008/615], the evaluation report shall also be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run that shall be carried out when the Member State concerned has informed the General Secretariat in accordance with the first sentence of Article 36(2) of Decision [2008/615]. 3. Further details of the procedure are set out in Chapter 4 of the Annex to this Decision.’

The contested decisions

10 The contested decisions, which refer, first, to Decision 2008/615, in particular Article 25 thereof, and, second, to Decision 2008/616, in particular Article 20 thereof and Chapter 4 of its annex, state as follows in their recitals 1 to 3: ‘(1) According to the Protocol on Transitional Provisions annexed to the [EU Treaty], to the [TFEU] and to the [EAEC Treaty], the legal effects of the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon are preserved until those acts are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties. (2) Accordingly, Article 25 of Decision [2008/615] is applicable and the Council must unanimously decide whether the Member States have implemented the provisions of Chapter 6 of that Decision. (3) Article 20 of Decision [2008/616] provides that decisions referred to in Article 25(2) of Decision [2008/615] are to be taken on the basis of an evaluation report based on a questionnaire. With respect to automated data exchange in accordance with Chapter 2 of Decision [2008/615], the evaluation report is to be based on an evaluation visit and a pilot run.’

11 Article 1 of Decision 2014/731 provides: ‘For the purposes of automated searching of vehicle registration data (VRD), Malta has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision [2008/615] and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.’

12 Article 1 of Decision 2014/743 is worded as follows: ‘For the purposes of automated searching of vehicle registration data (VRD), Cyprus has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision [2008/615] and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.’

13 Article 1 of Decision 2014/744 provides: ‘For the purposes of automated searching of vehicle registration data (VRD), Estonia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision [2008/615] and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 12 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.’

14 Article 1 of Decision 2014/911 is worded as follows: ‘For the purposes of automated searching of dactyloscopic data, Latvia has fully implemented the general provisions on data protection of Chapter 6 of Decision [2008/615] and is entitled to receive and supply personal data pursuant to Article 9 of that Decision as from the day of the entry into force of this Decision.’

Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought by the parties

15 The Parliament claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decisions; and — order the Council to pay the costs.

16 The Council claims that the Court should: — dismiss the actions as unfounded as regards the...