ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
17 December 2009 (*)
(Action for annulment – Delay – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T-430/09,
Işçi Partisi (Turkish Labour Party), established in Ankara (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Council of the European Union,
European Commission,
defendants,
APPLICATION, first, for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p.1), in so far as it applies to the Republic of Turkey, and, second, for compensation for the damage and loss allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of O. Czúcz, President (Rapporteur), I. Labucka and K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 The applicant claims that the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union have infringed their obligations arising 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), by implementing and maintaining in force, through the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (‘the contested regulation’), restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services by the introduction of visa requirements affecting Turkish nationals entering the territory of the European Union.
2 It can be inferred from the applicant’s claims that what it requests, in essence, is, first, partial annulment of the contested regulation, in so far as it concerns the Republic of Turkey, listed in Annex I thereto, and, second, compensation for the damage and loss allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey.
3 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 27 October 2009, the applicant brought the present action.
Form of order sought
4 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– declare its application admissible;
– extend the visa waiver programme to the Republic of Turkey;
– appoint an expert in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court to determine and verify the damage and loss allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey;
– remove the Republic of Turkey from Annex I to the contested regulation and include it instead in Annex II thereto;
– order the defendants to pay compensation for the damage and loss allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey, as calculated by the expert, together with interest;
– order the Republic of Turkey and the French Republic to intervene in this case;
– order the defendants to bear the costs.
Law
5 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, where an action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, by reasoned order, give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
6 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 on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
7 By order of 1 December 2008 in Case T‑220/08 (‘order of 1 December 2008’), the Court dismissed as manifestly out of time the application for partial annulment of the contested regulation. Similarly, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction in respect of the head of claim seeking the extension of the visa waiver programme to the Republic of Turkey and the claim seeking the inclusion of the Republic of Turkey in Annex II to the contested regulation.
8 The applicant failed to bring an appeal before the Court of Justice against that order within the period prescribed and opted instead to bring the present application.
9 It must be noted that, except in the exceptional circumstances of the 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), the 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.
10 The present application cannot be regarded as an application for revision since the applicant does not set out any new fact for the purposes of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. In addition, given the reasons on which the Court based its order of 1 December 2008, there is no fact whose discovery by the applicant could justify an application for revision.
11 As regards the head of claim seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey, the applicant clearly does not fulfil the 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). First, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered by a third party, namely, the Republic of Turkey. Second, the applicant has not alleged that the Republic of Turkey has assigned to it its alleged right to compensation.
12 The applicant has not therefore established any interest in bringing proceedings in the present case.
13 It follows from all the above considerations that the aforementioned claims must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without it being necessary to serve the application on the defendants.
14 In those circumstances, as the substantive action is manifestly inadmissible, there is no need to rule either on the claim for an order directing the Republic of Turkey and the French Republic to intervene in the present case or on the head of claim seeking the appointment of an expert to assess the damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey.
Costs
15 As the present order was made prior to service of the application on the defendants and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear the costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those 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, 2009.