ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
17 December 2009 (*)
(Application for submission of pleas against an order of the Court of First Instance and renewal of the application dismissed by that order – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑223/09,
Işçi Partisi (Turkish Labour Party), established in Ankara (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Commission
defendant,
APPLICATION for submission of pleas against the order of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 2008 in Case T‑219/08 Işçi Partisi v Commission and renewal of the application in that case,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, I. Labucka and K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 June 2008, registered under case number T-219/08, the applicant brought an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey due to the failure to receive financial assistance under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, (signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and its Additional Protocols (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1)), following the alleged failure of the Commission to comply with its obligations under the aforementioned Agreement following the exercise of veto rights by the Hellenic Republic in the Council.
2 That action was dismissed as inadmissible by order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 1 December 2008 (‘order of 1 December 2008’) on the ground, in particular, that the applicant, a Turkish political party, had not established that it had any interest in bringing proceedings, because it sought compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey but it did not plead any assignment of rights or any express mandate authorising it to bring proceedings for compensation for the alleged damage.
3 In accordance with Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the applicant could have brought an appeal before the Court of Justice against the order of 1 December 2008. However, the applicant failed to do so.
4 On 25 May 2009, the applicant lodged at the Registry of this Court the present ‘application for submission of pleas against the [order of 1 December 2008] and renewal of [its] application [in Case T-219/08]’.
5 The applicant claims, in essence, that the Court should alter the order of 1 December 2008 by declaring its action, as presented at paragraph 3 of the order of 1 December 2008, admissible and thus assessing it on the merits.
6 The applicant contends that ‘the reasons that the Court stated are not sufficient to prevent [it] from proceeding with the merits of the case’ and, in particular, that ‘[t]he decision of the Court, that a political party is not able to be a party in the current case, is inadmissible because the Labour Party is assigned by the Turkish people to defend their interests before the international courts’.
7 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
8 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to Article 111, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
9 It should be borne in mind that, despite the possibility, under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, of bringing an appeal against the order of 1 December 2008, the applicant failed to challenge that order and, consequently, the finding of inadmissibility by this Court, and instead chose to bring the present application ‘for submission of pleas against’ that order and the renewal of its application in Case T-219/08.
10 It should be noted that, under the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure of this Court, the latter may not consider whether or not to alter a previous decision unless an application for revision is brought before it on discovery of a fact which is of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, and which, when the decision was given, was unknown to the Court and to the party claiming the revision (Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before this Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute). Except in those exceptional circumstances, decisions of this Court may only be set aside by the Court of Justice provided that an appeal has been brought before it within prescribed time-limits. Accordingly, a person cannot be allowed to contest a decision of this Court by lodging a new application before it and requesting it to alter its decision. To accept this possibility would enable that person to overcome the definitive nature which the decision assumes in his regard once the time-limit for bringing an appeal has passed.
11 In any event, the applicant clearly does not fulfil the alternative requirements, laid down in settled case-law, in order to bring proceedings under Article 288 EC, namely, to be able to assert in law either a particular interest of its own or a right to compensation which has been assigned to it by others (see Case 238/78 Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 2955, paragraph 5, and Case T‑149/96 Coldiretti and Others v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-3841, paragraphs 57 and 59).
12 First, it is apparent from the case-law that the requirement according to which the applicant must be able to assert in law a particular interest of its own clearly implies that the damage for which it is seeking compensation was suffered by it personally (see, to that effect, Case 353/88 Briantex and Di Domenico v EEC and Commission [1989] 3623, paragraph 6; Joined Cases T‑481/93 and T‑484/93 Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II‑2941, paragraph 76, and Coldiretti and Others, cited in paragraph 11 above, paragraph 59). Consequently, an interest in seeing that the person who suffered damage obtains compensation is not sufficient to establish a particular interest within the meaning of the case-law. In the present case, the applicant seeks, as is apparent from the form of order sought, to have compensation paid to the Republic of Turkey for the damage suffered by it. It is, thus, for the Republic of Turkey, which has its own legal personality, and not for any of the Turkish political parties or organisations for the protection of collective interests, to exercise any right to compensation. The damage allegedly suffered by the applicant (consisting in a diminution of public confidence in Turkish political parties as a result of the difficulties relating to the accession of the Republic of Turkey to the European Union) is, accordingly, irrelevant in this case.
13 Second, it is equally apparent from the case-law that the alternative requirement, according to which the applicant must be able to assert a right to compensation which has been assigned to it by others, implies a specific legal act of assignment between the person having suffered the alleged damage and the applicant (meaning that the former has transferred its right to the latter) (see, to that effect, Ireks-Arkady, cited in paragraph 11 above, paragraph 5) or an express legal mandate to bring proceedings that has been explicitly extended by the person having suffered the damage (see, to that effect, Coldiretti and Others, cited in paragraph 11 above, paragraph 59, and Case T-304/01 Abad Pérez and Others v Council and Commission [2006] ECR II‑4857, paragraph 53). In the present case, the applicant relies only on the general function of political parties to represent the general interest of the people of the State in which they are registered. Clearly, this political representation function cannot entitle a party to exercise before this Court the legal rights of the State or those of its citizens in the same way as a specific assignment of rights or an express mandate to bring legal proceedings.
14 It follows from the foregoing that the present application must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant.
15 Accordingly, there is no need to rule on the requests that the Republic of Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and the Council be ordered to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant or that an expert’s report be obtained in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.
16 As the present order was made 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 these grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. Işçi Partisi (Turkish Labour Party) shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 17 December 2009.