Corte di giustizia UE n. 37241/2018

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 22 February 2018 ( * ) (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] and of a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria — Appeal manifestly inadmissible) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑701/17 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 24 October 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Lomez (Bulgaria), represented by K. Mladenova, advokat, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria, defendants at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], M. Berger (Rapporteur) 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 27 September 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria (T‑558/17, not published, EU:T:2017:697) (‘the order under appeal’), by which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed his action seeking annulment, first, of a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 April 2016 dismissing as inadmissible his application No 37241/2007 and, secondly, of Decision 1621/2007 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the contested decisions’). The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 2 By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 14 August 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action seeking the annulment of the contested decisions and just satisfaction in compensation for the loss which he claims to have suffered. 3 By the order under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 126 of its Rules of Procedure, 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 TFEU and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has jurisdiction in actions brought under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU 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 authors of the contested decisions were not institutions, bodies, offices or agencies 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] and that, consequently, that action had to be dismissed, without it being necessary to notify the defendants at first instance. 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] merely submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had jurisdiction on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (No 8) relating to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(2) of the Treaty on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the accession of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the Protection of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 17 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14 to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for the Protection of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and requests the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside the order under appeal, annul the contested decisions and award him compensation. 10 It should be noted that, according to the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], 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 the appeal (orders of 1 February 2017, Vidmar and Others v Commission , C‑240/16 P, EU:C:2017:89, paragraph 23, and of 22 November 2017, Kaleychev v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑424/17 P, not published, EU:C:2017:884, paragraph 10). 11 In the present case, it is clear that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] appeal, which is limited to a single page, contains no statement of reasons and, consequently, does not meet the requirements that an appeal must satisfy. 12 In any event, it must be recalled that, in accordance with the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 263 TFEU, only acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may be subject to judicial review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria are not part of those institutions, their decisions cannot be subject to review by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was fully entitled in law to decide that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] action had to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without it being necessary to notify the defendants at first instance. 13 It follows that, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded. Costs 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, 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 defendants 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 February 2018. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.