Case T‑468/14
Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU
v
European Commission
(Financial support — Research — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development (2007-2013) — eDIGIREGION project — Commission decision refusing participation of an undertaking — Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Inadmissibility — Non-contractual liability — Non-material damage — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 12 May 2016
1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion
(Art. 263, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 102(2))
2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Proceedings brought by fax — Time-limit for lodging the signed original — Point from which time starts to run —Date of receipt of the fax and not the expiry date of the time-limit for bringing an action
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 43(6))
3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Signed original of the application not submitted before expiry of the time-limit — Inadmissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(6))
4. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Excusable error — Concept — Action brought without the application being signed by a lawyer — Not included
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 43(1), first para.)
5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Lawyer’s handwritten signature — Essential rule of strict application — Not capable of subsequent regularisation — No infringement of the right to an effective remedy
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 43(1), first para.)
6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of those conditions not met — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety
(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)
7. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissibility
(Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU)
8. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Amplification of an existing plea — Admissibility
(Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2))
1. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 25)
2. Under Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Court Registry by fax or by email is deemed to be the date of lodgement for the purposes of compliance with the time limits for taking steps in proceedings only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days after receipt of the fax or email.
(see para. 28)
3. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 31)
4. The concept of excusable error must be strictly construed and can concern only exceptional circumstances. In that regard, in the case of an action brought without the application being signed by a lawyer, an argument that the error committed was excusable on the ground that, in national law, the absence of the lawyer’s signature on the originating application is rectifiable, must be rejected. The preparation, supervision and verification of procedural documents to be lodged at the Registry are the responsibility of the lawyer of the party concerned.
(see para. 32)
5. The fact that the absence of the lawyer’s signature on the originating application is not rectifiable in EU law does not affect the right to an effective remedy. The strict application of those procedural rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. Whilst the conditions governing the submission of applications and the time limits for bringing an action restrict the right of judicial access, those limitations do not constitute an impairment to the very essence of that right, especially since the rules in question are clear and do not pose any particular difficulty of interpretation.
(see para. 33)
6. See the text of the decision.
(see paras 41-44)
7. A claim for damages based on the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU is an independent form of action in the system of remedies available in EU law, so that the fact that an application for annulment is inadmissible does not in itself render a claim for damages inadmissible.
However, although a party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged by any provision of law to seek the annulment of the illegal measure which causes him damage, he may not by those means circumvent the inadmissibility of an application which concerns the same instance of illegality and which has the same financial end in view.
Thus, an action for damages must be declared inadmissible where it is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive and would, if upheld, have the effect of nullifying the legal effects of that decision. That is the case if the applicant seeks, by way of a claim for damages, to obtain a result which is identical to that he would have obtained from the success of an action for annulment which it failed to bring in good time.
Furthermore, an action for damages may also able to nullify the legal effects of a decision which has become final where the applicant seeks a greater benefit, but including that which it could obtain from an annulling judgment. In such a case, it is however necessary to establish the existence of a close connection between the action for damages and the action for annulment in order to conclude that the former is inadmissible.
(see paras 45-48)
8. See the text of the decision.
(see para. 79)