Appeal brought on 18 February 2014 by Forgital Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union

(Case C-84/14 P)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Forgital Italy SpA (represented by: R. Mastroianni and V. Turinetti di Priero, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

Form of order sought

Forgital Italy claims that the Court should:

set aside the order of 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as that regulation alters the designation of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties are suspended;

refer Case T-438/10 back to the General Court for judgment, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Forgital Italy alleges infringement of the following: Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the general principle of effective judicial protection of rights; and the right of defence. It submits that the General Court erred in law in so far as it raised an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion in respect of the action brought by Forgital Italy in Case T-438/10 without setting out the reasons of fact and law on which that objection was based or allowing the parties to submit their comments in that regard, as required under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In that regard, the fact that the General Court addressed a question to the parties relating to the possible implications for Case T-438/10 of its order of 5 February 2013 in Case T-551/11 BSI v Council is irrelevant, because, contrary to the finding of the General Court, the parties should not have been required to infer from that question that the General Court was considering the possibility of raising an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion.

Secondly, Forgital Italy claims that the General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in conjunction with the general principle of effective judicial protection referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to Forgital Italy, Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 does not constitute a regulatory act which entails implementing measures.