Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62017TN0391

Case T-391/17: Action brought on 28 June 2017 — Romania v Commission

OJ C 269, 14.8.2017, p. 33–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.8.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/33

Action brought on 28 June 2017 — Romania v Commission

(Case T-391/17)

(2017/C 269/45)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romania (represented by: R. Radu, C.-M. Florescu, E. Gane and L. Liţu, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the Commission’s (EU) decision of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’;

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaties of the European Union relating to the competence of the Union.

—

The proposed citizens’ initiative is exclusively aimed at improving the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities, and has no direct link with cultural diversity for the purposes of Article 3 TEU and Article 167 TFEU.

2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

—

The Commission confines itself to listing the proposals for measures by means of which statements of support will be collected from citizens and does not put forward any legal argument to support the conclusion that these fall within its sphere of competence.
Top