Corte di giustizia UE/2017

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 14 December 2017 ( * ) (Appeal — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice –– Request for a preliminary ruling –– Lack of jurisdiction of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Appeal manifestly unfounded) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑401/17 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 30 June 2017, Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Gibraltar (Gibraltar), represented by A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], abogado, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain, defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and M. Berger (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA] : M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 15 May 2017, Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Spain (T‑899/16, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2017:356), by which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed its request for a preliminary ruling under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU. The proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 2 By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 21 October 2016, the appellant brought an action seeking a preliminary ruling from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU, declaring that the Spanish tax law in force infringes [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 63 TFEU. 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] recalled, inter alia, in paragraph 6 of that order that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256(3) TFEU and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it has jurisdiction to hear and determine questions for a preliminary ruling, referred under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267, in specific areas laid down by the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pointed out that, as yet, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has not been granted any powers in this respect. 5 What is more, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] recalled in essence, in paragraph 7 of that order, that only a national court or tribunal may decide to suspend proceedings pending before it and to bring the matter before the EU Courts pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU. It specified in that regard that the request by the appellant, a legal person governed by private law, can in no case confer on the present action the character of a reference for a preliminary ruling within the meaning of that article. 6 In the light of those considerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] found that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and therefore dismissed it. Form of order sought by the appellant 7 By its appeal, the appellant claims that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should: –        set aside the order under appeal; –        interpret [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 63 TFEU; –        order the competent institutions to put an end to the discrimination to which it is subject, and –        confer on it the status of person in custody within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU. The appeal 8 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. 9 In the present case, it is appropriate to apply that provision. 10 In support of its appeal, the appellant argues, inter alia, that the order under appeal must be set aside on the ground that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not take into consideration substantive documents submitted as evidence. It also asserts that that order errs in law and is unjust and vitiated by failure to state reasons. What is more, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] allegedly failed to comply with rules of procedure and was not impartial. Finally, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by the order under appeal, infringed not only EU law and civil law, but also the constitutional standards of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 11 In that respect, 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 also 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 6 July 2017, Vatseva v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑231/17 P, not published, EU:C:2017:526, paragraph 12). 12 In the present case, it is clear that the appellant’s appeal contains no statement of reasons and does not, therefore, satisfy the requirements set out in Articles 168 and 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. 13 Furthermore, it should be noted that the areas of jurisdiction of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are clearly set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 TFEU, as specified in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256(3) TFEU, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 in specific areas only, laid down by the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It is clear from that Statute that no jurisdiction in that regard has yet been conferred on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 14 Finally, even if, by its appeal, the appellant intended also to request a preliminary ruling from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU, it must be pointed out, in any event, that that article establishes a procedure for direct cooperation between the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the courts and tribunals of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the course of which the parties are requested to submit observations only within the legal framework established by the court making the reference. Within the limits established by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU, it is thus for the national courts alone to decide on the principle and purpose of any reference to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice (orders of 12 February 2010, Município de Barcelos , C‑408/09, not published, EU:C:2010:77, paragraph 4 and the case-law cited, and of 6 November 2014, Krikorian and Others , C‑243/14, not published, EU:C:2014:2357, paragraph 5). 15 It is also settled case-law that it is for the national judicature alone and not for the parties to the main proceedings to bring a matter before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice (orders of 12 February 2010, Município de Barcelos , C‑408/09, not published, EU:C:2010:77, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited, and of 6 November 2014, Krikorian and Others , C‑243/14, not published, EU:C:2014:2357, paragraph 6). 16 It is clear that the request for a preliminary ruling was not brought by a national court or tribunal in the context of proceedings pending before it. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was entitled to declare that it had no jurisdiction and dismiss the action brought before it by the appellant. 17 It follows that, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure, the appeal must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded. Costs 18 [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. 19 Since the present order has been adopted without the appeal being served on the defendant and, therefore, without the latter having incurred costs, Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1.      The appeal is dismissed. 2.      Double ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 14 December 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.