Case T‑435/09

(publication by extracts)

GL2006 Europe Ltd

v

European Commission

(Arbitration clause — Contracts for financial assistance concluded in the context of the Fifth and Sixth Framework Programmes for Community activities in the field of research and technological development and in the context of the eTEN Programme — Highway, J WeB, Care Paths, Cocoon, Secure-Justice, Qualeg, Lensis, E-Pharm Up, Liric, Grace, Clinic and E2SP projects — Termination of contracts — Reimbursement of amounts paid — Debit notes — Counterclaim — Representation of the applicant)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 16 September 2013

1.      Judicial proceedings — Application devoid of purpose — Applicant remaining silent following a measure of organisation of procedure concerning the designation of new representatives — No need to adjudicate — Relevance to a counterclaim

(Art. 225 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113)

2.      Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Scope and limits — Jurisdiction to hear a counterclaim — Basis

(Arts 225 EC and 238 EC)

1.      The General Court may declare of its own motion, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it where the applicant remains silent following a measure of organisation of procedure concerning the designation of new representatives.

However, where the defendant has brought a counterclaim and the decision that there is no need to adjudicate on the action brought by the applicant is not capable of satisfying that party, it follows that, first, the counterclaim still has a purpose, even though the main claim does not, and, secondly, the defendant still has an interest in its counterclaim being upheld. That is the case with a counterclaim seeking an order that the applicant repay sums advanced to it.

(see paras 33, 45, 46)

2.      Under Article 238 EC the Courts of the European Union have jurisdiction to give judgment pursuant to any arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on behalf of the European Union, whether that contract be governed by public or private law. The jurisdiction of the Court, under an arbitration clause, to hear a case concerning a contract is to be assessed in the light of Article 238 EC and the terms of the clause itself. That jurisdiction derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation. Thus, the Court can, first, adjudicate on a contractual dispute only if the parties have expressed their will to confer that jurisdiction on the Court and, secondly, hear only claims arising from the contract which contains the arbitration clause or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract.

Furthermore, in the Community system of legal remedies, the jurisdiction to hear the main action implies the existence of a jurisdiction to hear any counterclaim made in the course of the procedure which is derived from the same act or circumstance that is the subject of the application. That jurisdiction is based on the interests of procedural economy and on the priority of the court first seised, considerations that are also recognised in the procedural systems of the Member States.

(see paras 37, 38, 42)