Fons Iuris
Torna alla ricerca
Corte di giustizia UEsentenza

Corte di giustizia UE/2013

ECLI:EU:C:2013:440
Testo integrale del provvedimento

Testo integrale del provvedimento

62012CO0570_EN

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] part

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑570/12 P,

APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 29 November 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Bucharest (Romania), represented by R. Neagu, avocat, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being:

[OSCURATO:PERSONA],

defendant at first instance,

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]),

composed of G. Arestis, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J.-C.

Bonichot and J.L. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Wathelet, Registrar: 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] of Justice, makes the following

[OSCURATO:PERSONA]

1. By his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to have set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 25 September 2012 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑320/12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the order under appeal’), in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed, as manifestly inadmissible, his action seeking, first, a declaration, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to act in not initiating the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU against Romania and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure.

Procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal

2. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 17 July 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action seeking, first, a declaration, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to act in not initiating the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU against Romania and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure.

3. By the order under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 111 of its Rules of Procedure, dismissed the action as manifestly inadmissible.

4. As regards, first, the action for failure to act, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], referring to the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 247/87 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1989] ECR 291, noted, at paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, the settled case-law that an action for failure to act is inadmissible where it is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, by not initiating an action for failure to fulfil obligations against a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has, in breach of the FEU Treaty, failed to act.

5. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, at paragraph 7 of that order, that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the only measures which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may adopt are measures addressed to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that neither a reasoned opinion nor referral to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations can constitute acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons.

6. As regards, second, the action for damages, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pointed out, at paragraph 10 of the order under appeal, that, since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not bound to commence infringement proceedings under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU, its decision not to institute such proceedings is not, in any event, unlawful, so that it cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred, inter alia, to the order in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑72/90 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1990] ECR I‑2181, paragraph 13.

7. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held, at paragraph 11 of the order under appeal, that the action for damages had to be dismissed as manifestly unfounded, without it being necessary to examine the admissibility thereof.

The form of order sought by the appellant before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice

8. By his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks ‘the review of the admissibility on the following grounds: – The [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ... totally ignored and avoided to judge the counts of [his] action.

It is a case of denial of justice. – The [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ... turned a blind eye to the real content of [his] action under pretext of higher interpretation. – It is plain the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] covers up on infringement of the Treaties, by the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] which infringement has resulted in act of crime against humanity in continuing form, committed against millions of people. – It is no question of failing to act or not fulfilling obligations. – It is a provoking fact that the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], denies the Judging of Count nr.4 consisting in a huge property robbery (at least 4 000 [billion] Euro the fruits of property included), collusively perpetrated by EU and Rumanians officials.’ The appeal

9. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by reasoned order, and without opening the oral procedure, dismiss the appeal and, where appropriate, refrain from serving notice of the action on the defendant.

Appellant’s arguments

10. In essence, the appellant asserts that the order under appeal is not well founded and that it is incorrect since the judges did not acquire a thorough knowledge of the case.

11. He also appears to dispute the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] treatment of the affair as an action for failure to act in so far as, according to him, what is alleged are acts of crimes against humanity, in breach of Articles 2 TEU and 49 TEU, and not a failure to act.

Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]

12. It must be stated that the appellant does not refer to any specific element of the order under appeal and does not rely on any plea in law or legal argument in support of his appeal.

13. In this respect, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, it follows from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 168(1)(d) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice that an appeal must state 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, failing which the appeal is inadmissible (see, inter alia, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑248/99 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Monsanto and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2002] ECR I‑1, paragraph 68, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑67/09 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Cofra v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2010] ECR I‑9811, paragraph 48).

An appeal which does not contain any arguments aimed at specifically identifying the error in law which the judgment or the order in question is vitiated by does not fulfil that requirement (see, inter alia, order of 21 March 2013 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑465/12 P Simov v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Bulgaria , paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).

14. Furthermore, the arguments put forward in support of this appeal are difficult to understand and confusing, so that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not in a position to carry out the task which is required of it and to carry out its review of legality (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑51/92 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1999] ECR I‑4235, paragraph 113, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Cofra v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , paragraph 49).

15. In those circumstances, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, the appeal must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant. Costs

16. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) thereof, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.

17. As the present order has been adopted prior to notification of the appeal to the defendant at first instance and, therefore, before the latter could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant must bear his own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear his own costs.

Anonimizzato ex art. 52 D.Lgs. 196/2003
62012CO0570_EN [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑570/12 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 29 November 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], residing in Bucharest (Romania), represented by R. Neagu, avocat, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA], defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of G. Arestis, President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], J.-C. Bonichot and J.L. da [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Wathelet, Registrar: 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] of Justice, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1. By his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to have set aside the order of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 25 September 2012 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T‑320/12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the order under appeal’), in which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed, as manifestly inadmissible, his action seeking, first, a declaration, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to act in not initiating the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU against Romania and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure. Procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the order under appeal 2. By application lodged at the Registry of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 17 July 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought an action seeking, first, a declaration, in essence, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to act in not initiating the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU against Romania and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure. 3. By the order under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 111 of its Rules of Procedure, dismissed the action as manifestly inadmissible. 4. As regards, first, the action for failure to act, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], referring to the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 247/87 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1989] ECR 291, noted, at paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, the settled case-law that an action for failure to act is inadmissible where it is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, by not initiating an action for failure to fulfil obligations against a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has, in breach of the FEU Treaty, failed to act. 5. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated, at paragraph 7 of that order, that, in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the only measures which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may adopt are measures addressed to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that neither a reasoned opinion nor referral to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations can constitute acts of direct and individual concern to natural or legal persons. 6. As regards, second, the action for damages, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pointed out, at paragraph 10 of the order under appeal, that, since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not bound to commence infringement proceedings under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU, its decision not to institute such proceedings is not, in any event, unlawful, so that it cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] referred, inter alia, to the order in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑72/90 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1990] ECR I‑2181, paragraph 13. 7. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] held, at paragraph 11 of the order under appeal, that the action for damages had to be dismissed as manifestly unfounded, without it being necessary to examine the admissibility thereof. The form of order sought by the appellant before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice 8. By his appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks ‘the review of the admissibility on the following grounds: – The [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ... totally ignored and avoided to judge the counts of [his] action. It is a case of denial of justice. – The [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ... turned a blind eye to the real content of [his] action under pretext of higher interpretation. – It is plain the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] covers up on infringement of the Treaties, by the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] which infringement has resulted in act of crime against humanity in continuing form, committed against millions of people. – It is no question of failing to act or not fulfilling obligations. – It is a provoking fact that the [[OSCURATO:PERSONA]] [OSCURATO:PERSONA], denies the Judging of Count nr.4 consisting in a huge property robbery (at least 4 000 [billion] Euro the fruits of property included), collusively perpetrated by EU and Rumanians officials.’ The appeal 9. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure, where an appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may at any time, acting on a report from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by reasoned order, and without opening the oral procedure, dismiss the appeal and, where appropriate, refrain from serving notice of the action on the defendant. Appellant’s arguments 10. In essence, the appellant asserts that the order under appeal is not well founded and that it is incorrect since the judges did not acquire a thorough knowledge of the case. 11. He also appears to dispute the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] treatment of the affair as an action for failure to act in so far as, according to him, what is alleged are acts of crimes against humanity, in breach of Articles 2 TEU and 49 TEU, and not a failure to act. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 12. It must be stated that the appellant does not refer to any specific element of the order under appeal and does not rely on any plea in law or legal argument in support of his appeal. 13. In this respect, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, it follows from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 168(1)(d) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 169 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice that an appeal must state 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, failing which the appeal is inadmissible (see, inter alia, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑248/99 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Monsanto and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2002] ECR I‑1, paragraph 68, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑67/09 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Cofra v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [2010] ECR I‑9811, paragraph 48). An appeal which does not contain any arguments aimed at specifically identifying the error in law which the judgment or the order in question is vitiated by does not fulfil that requirement (see, inter alia, order of 21 March 2013 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑465/12 P Simov v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Bulgaria , paragraph 12 and the case-law cited). 14. Furthermore, the arguments put forward in support of this appeal are difficult to understand and confusing, so that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not in a position to carry out the task which is required of it and to carry out its review of legality (see, to that effect, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑51/92 P [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [1999] ECR I‑4235, paragraph 113, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Cofra v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , paragraph 49). 15. In those circumstances, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, the appeal must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant. Costs 16. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) thereof, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. 17. As the present order has been adopted prior to notification of the appeal to the defendant at first instance and, therefore, before the latter could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant must bear his own costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] part On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall bear his own costs.
Sentenza Corte di giustizia UE/2013 — Fons Iuris — Fons Iuris