Case C‑589/15 P
Alexios Anagnostakis
v
European Commission
(Appeal — Institutional law — Citizens’ initiative inviting the European Commission to submit a legislative proposal relating to the writing off of public debt for Member States in a state of necessity — Application for registration — Refusal by the Commission — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Article 4(2) (b) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 122 TFEU — Article 136 TFEU — Infringement)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 12 September 2017
Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Commission decision refusing to register a proposal for a European citizens’ initiative—Commission pleading manifest lack of legislative attributions in relation to the measures proposed—Obligation to state reasons in relation to each provision of the treaty referred to in the proposal—Limits
[Art. 296 TFEU; Regulation No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 4(2)(b), and (3) second indent and Annex II]
Actions for annulment—Grounds—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Separate ground from the ground concerning substantive legality
Citizenship of the Union—Rights of the citizen—Presentation of a citizens’ initiative—Regulation No 211/2011—Conditions for registration—Proposal to be within the Commission’s competence—Examination by the Commission
[Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, first, second and tenth recitals and Art. 4(2)(b) and Annex II)
Appeal—Grounds—Ground of appeal presented for the first time in the context of the appeal—Inadmissibility
(Art. 256(1) second indent TFEU); Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Economic and monetary policy—Economic policy—Competence of the Union to grant financial assistance to Member States in difficulty—Scope—Adoption of legislation establishing a principle of the state of necessity allowing a Member State facing serious financing problems to not repay all or part of its debt—Not included
(Art. 122(1) and (2) TFEU)
Economic and monetary policy—Economic policy—Coordination of economic policies—Competence of the Union—Scope—Adoption of legislation establishing a principle of the state of necessity allowing a Member State facing serious financing problems to not repay all or part of its debt—Not included
(Art. 136(1) TFEU)
Commission—Powers—Power to initiate legislation—Possibility of basing a legislative initiative on a principle of international law in the absence of a competence in the Treaties—Not included
(Art. 13(2) TEU)
The obligation to inform the organisers of a European citizens’ initiative of the reasons for the refusal to register their proposed initiative, as provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative, constitutes a specific expression, with regard to the European citizens’ initiative, of the obligation to state reasons for legal acts enshrined in Article 296 TFEU. That requirement to state reasons must be assessed according to the circumstances of the case.
In that regard, where that refusal is based on Article 4(2)(b) of that regulation, that statement must state the reasons why the Commission considers that the proposal is manifestly outside the scope of the powers under which it may submit a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties. In the case of a proposal for a European citizens’ initiative which makes general reference to provisions of the TFEU for the adoption of the Union legal act referred to in that proposal, the Commission is entitled to take a decision solely on the basis of those provisions invoked which appear to it the least irrelevant, without being required specifically to justify its assessment regarding each of those provisions or, a fortiori, to explain why any other provision of the TFEU was irrelevant. In that context, even if the Commission’s website only allows a block selection of the provisions of a given area, the organisers could, however, have provided more detailed information on the relevance of those articles to the content of the proposal at issue, in accordance with Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011.
(see paras 28, 29, 34, 37, 38)
See the text of the decision.
(see para 42)
As recalled in recital 10 of Regulation No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative, the decision on the registration of a proposed European citizens’ initiative, within the meaning of Article 4 of that regulation, must be taken in accordance with the principle of good administration, which entails, in particular, the obligation for the competent institution to conduct a diligent and impartial examination which, moreover, takes into account all the relevant features of the case. These requirements, that are inherent in the principle of good administration, apply generally to the actions of the European Union administration in its relations with the public and, therefore, also in the context of the right to submit a European citizens’ initiative as an instrument of citizen participation in the democratic life of the European Union. Moreover, in accordance with the objectives pursued by that instrument, as set out in recitals (1) and (2) of Regulation No 211/2011 and consisting, inter alia, in encouraging citizen participation and making the Union more accessible, the registration condition provided for in Article 4(2)(b) of that regulation must be interpreted and applied by the Commission, when it receives a proposal for a European citizens’ initiative, in such a way as to ensure easy accessibility to that initiative.
Accordingly, it is only if a proposed European citizens’ initiative, in view of its subject matter and objectives, as reflected in the mandatory and, where appropriate, additional information that has been provided by the organisers pursuant to Annex II to Regulation No 211/2011, is manifestly outside the scope of the powers under which the Commission may present a proposal for a legal act of the Union for the purposes of the application of the Treaties, that the Commission is entitled to refuse to register that proposed initiative pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of that regulation.
(see paras 47-50)
See the text of the decision.
(see paras 55, 79, 93)
Taking into account, inter alia, the spirit of solidarity between the Member States, which must, in accordance with the wording of Article 122 (1) TFEU, inform the adoption of measures appropriate to the economic situation within the meaning of that provision, that provision cannot serve as a basis for adopting a measure or a principle enabling, in essence, a Member State facing severe financing difficulties to decide unilaterally not to repay all or part of its debt. Nor can the adoption of such a principle be regarded as a measure of assistance granted by the Union within the meaning of Article 122 (2) TFEU in so far as that principle would cover not only debts owed by the Member States to the Union, but also debts owed by the Member States to other natural or legal persons, both public and private. The subject-matter of Article 122 (2) TFEU is solely financial assistance granted by the Union and not that granted by the Member States.
(see paras 71, 76, 77)
The adoption of a principle of necessity, according to which a Member State facing serious financing difficulties can unilaterally decide not to repay all or part of its debt, manifestly falls outside the scope of the measures described in Article 136 (1) TFEU. There is nothing to support the conclusion that the adoption of such a principle would serve the objective of coordinating budgetary discipline or fall within the scope of the economic policy guidelines which the Council is entitled to draw up in order to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union. In that regard, as the role of the Union in the area of economic policy is restricted to the adoption of coordinating measures, the adoption of that measure, far from constituting economic policy guidance within the meaning of Article 136 (1) TFEU, would in fact result in replacing the free will of contracting parties with a legislative mechanism for the unilateral writing-off of sovereign debt, which is something that the provision clearly did not authorise
(see paras 89-91)
In accordance with the principle of division of powers stated in Article 5 (1) and (2) of the TEU, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. As regards, in particular, the institutions of the Union, it is specified, in Article 13 (2) TEU, that each institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, in accordance with the procedures, conditions and objectives set out therein.
Consequently, it is only if competence is conferred in the Treaties to this effect that the Commission may propose the adoption of a legal act of the Union. The mere existence of a principle of international law, even if it were established, would not suffice as a basis for a legislative initiative on the Commission’s part.
(see paras 97-100)