Corte di giustizia UE/2017

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 22 November 2017 ( * ) (Appeal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice — Lack of jurisdiction of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to hear and determine an action seeking annulment of a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Appeal manifestly inadmissible) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑424/17 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 14 July 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by K. Mladenova, advokat, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and F. Biltgen, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 22 June 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (T‑58/17, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2017:452), by which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed his action seeking annulment of a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 15 December 2016 which had dismissed as inadmissible his application No 67216/16 (‘the decision at issue’). The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 2 By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 25 January 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action seeking annulment of the decision at issue. 3 By the order under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed that action on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] noted in particular, in paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, that, according to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Annex I to that statute, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has jurisdiction in actions brought under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] only against acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 5 In that respect, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held, in paragraph 7 of the order under appeal, that the author of the decision at issue was not an institution, a body, an office or an agency of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 6 In the light of those findings, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that that action therefore had to be dismissed and that it was not necessary to notify the defendant at first instance thereof. The appeal 7 Pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part. 8 In the present case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] takes the view that it is necessary to apply that provision. 9 In support of his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] claims, although without stating any reasons, that the order under appeal must be set aside in so far as it is the result of a denial of justice by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. He merely asserts that that order is null and void, unjust and vitiated by a failure to state reasons. According to [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had jurisdiction to rule on his action pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 8 relating to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(2) of the Treaty on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the accession of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the Protection of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], signed at Rome on 4 November 1950. 10 First, it should be noted that, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s case-law, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of that appeal (orders of 1 February 2017, Vidmar and Others v Commission , C‑240/16 P, EU:C:2017:89, paragraph 23, and of 6 July 2017, Vatseva v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑231/17 P, not published, EU:C:2017:526, paragraph 12). 11 In the present case, however, it is clear that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] appeal contains no statement of reasons and, consequently, does not meet the requirements that an appeal must satisfy. 12 Second, in accordance with the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], only the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may be subject to judicial review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not one of those institutions, its decisions cannot be subject to review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was fully entitled to decide that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] action had to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and that it was not necessary to notify the defendant at first instance thereof. 13 It follows that, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible. Costs 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. 15 As the present order has been adopted without notification of the appeal to the defendant at first instance, and as the latter could therefore not have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must bear his own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear his own costs. Luxembourg, 22 November 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.