ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
21 January 2014 (1)
(Actions for damages – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T-635/13,
Sekula Aćimović, residing in Kočevje (Slovenia), represented by V. Žagar, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Republic of Slovenia,
Deželna banka Slovenije d.d.,
defendants,
APPLICATION for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegedly illegal conduct of the Deželna banka Slovenije and of the Slovenian judicial authorities,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of S. Frimodt Nielsen (Rapporteur), President, F. Dehousse and A.M. Collins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 26 November 2013, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– order the payment of the loan guarantee deposited with interest, as well as damages and interest, to be calculated since 29 August 1991.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action, it may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action by reasoned order.
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, the applicant seeks, by its application, compensation for the harm it allegedly suffered as a result of allegedly illegal conduct of the Deželna banka Slovenije and of the Slovenian judicial authorities.
6 The Court’s powers in the field of non‑contractual liability are set out in Article 268 TFEU, the second and third paragraphs of Article 340 TFEU, and the second paragraph of Article 188 EA. Under those provisions, the General Court has jurisdiction only in actions seeking compensation for damage caused by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union or by their servants in the performance of their duties (see, to that effect, Case C‑234/02 P Ombudsman v Lamberts [2004] ECR I‑2803, paragraphs 49 and 59).
7 In the present case, it is evident that the author of the conduct alleged to be at the origin of the harm suffered is not an institution, a body, an office or an agency of the European Union.
8 It follows from the above considerations that the present action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the defendant.
Costs
9 As the present order was adopted 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 those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs.
Luxembourg, 21 January 2014.
E. Coulon | | S. Frimodt Nielsen |