Provisional text
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
15 May 2017 (1)
(Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T‑899/16,
Double ‘W’ Enterprises Limited, established in Gibraltar (Gibraltar), represented by M. Rubio Crespo, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Kingdom of Spain,
defendent,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of G. Berardis (Rapporteur), President, S. Papasavvas and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1 The applicant brought the present action by application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 October 2016.
2 It claims that the Court should:
– give a preliminary ruling, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, declaring that the tax law in force in the Kingdom of Spain infringes Article 63 TFEU.
Law
3 Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, where the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, the General Court may decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
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 In the present case, by its application the applicant seeks a preliminary ruling from the General Court on the alleged breach of Article 63 TFEU by the Kingdom of Spain.
6 The powers of the General Court are those set out in Article 256 TFEU, as specified in Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Article 256(3) TFEU provides that the General Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267, in specific areas laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that regard, it must be pointed out that, until now, the General Court has not been granted any powers in this respect.
7 Moreover, it should also be noted that the request from the applicant, a legal person governed by private law, can in no case confer on the present action the character of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU. A question referred for a preliminary ruling presupposes that the body which made the reference is a court or tribunal (see order of 17 February 2010, Bakonyi v Hungary, T‑456/09, not published, EU:T:2010:43, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).
8 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the present action must be dismissed on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction, and it is not necessary to serve the application on the defendant.
Costs
9 Since this order has been adopted before service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred any costs, it is sufficient to order that the applicant must bear its own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1) The action is dismissed.
2) Double ‘W’ Enterprises Limited shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 15 May 2017.