ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
19 March 2014 (1)
(Actions for damages – Force of res judicata)
In Case T-88/14,
Sekula Aćimović, residing in Kočevje (Slovenia), represented by L. Kostič, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Republic of Slovenia,
Deželna banka Slovenije d.d.,
defendants,
APPLICATION for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegedly illegal conduct of the Deželna banka Slovenije and of the Slovenian judicial authorities,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of S. Frimodt Nielsen (Rapporteur), President, F. Dehousse and A.M. Collins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 6 February 2014, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– order the payment of the loan guarantee deposited with interest, as well as damages and interest, to be calculated since 29 August 1991.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action, it may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action by reasoned order.
4 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
5 The applicant seeks, by its application, compensation for the harm it allegedly suffered as a result of allegedly illegal conduct of the Deželna banka Slovenije and of the Slovenian judicial authorities.
6 The applicant has lodged on 26 November 2013 an application at the Registry of the Court having the same subject-matter, founded on the same grounds and directed against the same defendants as the present case. That case was registered under the number T-635/13 and was closed by order of the General Court of 21 January 2014.
7 It is well-established case-law that the force of res judicata attaching to a judgment can constitute a bar to the admissibility of an action if the action which gave rise to the judgment in question was between the same parties, had the same subject-matter and was founded on the same grounds (Joined Cases 172/83 and 226/83 Hoogovens Groep v Commission [1985] ECR 2831, paragraph 9, Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86 France v Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, paragraph 12, and Case T-28/89 Maindiaux and Others v ESC [1990] ECR II-59, paragraph 23), those conditions necessarily being cumulative (Case T-162/94 NMB France and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-427, paragraph 37, Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01, P & O European Ferries (Vizcaya) v Commission [2003] ECR II-2957, paragraph 77).
8 In the present case, it is evident that the dispute is between the same parties, has the same subject-matter and is founded on the same grounds as Case T-635/13, Aćimović v Slovenia and Deželna banka Slovenije. That case was closed by order of the General Court of 21 January 2014.
9 It follows from the above considerations that the present action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the defendant.
Costs
10 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs.
Luxembourg, 19 March 2014.
E. Coulon | | S. Frimodt Nielsen |