Language of document :

Appeal brought on 25 July 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2017 in Case T-673/15: Guardian Europe v European Union

(Case C-447/17 P)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Guardian Europe Sàrl; European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Annul paragraph (1) of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

Dismiss as unfounded Guardian Europe’s claim, made at first instance, seeking to obtain a sum of EUR 936 000 in respect of bank guarantee costs in compensation for damage that it allegedly suffered because of an infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time in Case T-82/08; or, and purely in the alternative, reduce that compensation to an amount of EUR 299 251.64, together with compensatory interest calculated having regard to the fact that that amount is composed of different amounts that became due at different points in time;

Order Guardian Europe to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant raises four grounds.

The first ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the rules applicable as regards limitation where there is a continuous loss, in that the General Court considered that alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs that materialised more than five years before the action for damages was lodged was not time-barred.

The second ground alleges that there was an error of law in the interpretation of the notion of a causal link, in that the General Court held that the infringement of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs, whereas, under a settled line of case-law, an undertaking’s own decision not to pay a fine during proceedings before the European Union courts constitutes the determining cause of the payment of such costs.

The third ground alleges that there was an error of law in the determination of the period during which the alleged material damage occurred and a failure to state reasons in that the General Court held, without setting out the reasons, that the period during which the alleged material damage consisting of the payment of bank guarantee costs occurred could be different from the period during which it had situated the existence of the unlawful conduct that allegedly caused that damage.

The fourth ground alleges that there was an error of law due to overcompensation in the award of compensatory interest, in that the General Court awarded the applicant compensatory interest on an amount from a date on which that amount was not yet owed by it.

____________