Case T‑213/12

Elitaliana SpA

v

Eulex Kosovo

(Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Helicopter support to the Eulex Kosovo Mission — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber), 4 June 2013

1.      Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Mission under the EU security and defence policy not having legal personality — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted by the head of such a mission in the context of a procedure for the award of a public service contract — Attributability to the Commission — Application inadmissible

(Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 54(2)(d))

2.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — No information making it possible unambiguously to identify the defendant — Court not obliged to identify the defendant

(Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b))

3.      Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Excusable error — Concept

(Art. 263, first para., TFEU)

4.      Actions for damages — Pleas closely linked to those of an action for annulment declared inadmissible — Inadmissibility of the action for compensation

(Arts 263, first para., TFEU and 340 TFEU)

1.      A mission instituted by a common action of the Council under the EU security and defence policy, which does not have legal personality and in respect of which there is no provision that it can be a party to proceedings before the European Union Courts, constitutes a mere action which cannot be considered a body, office or agency of the European Union within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

Measures adopted pursuant to delegated powers are normally attributed to the delegating institution, on which it falls to defend the measure in question before the Courts. Where the Commission delegates certain tasks relating to the implementation of the budget of a mission under the EU security and defence policy as provided for in Article 54(2)(d) of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended, and where the head of that mission may conclude technical arrangements regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises only with the Commission’s approval, measures adopted by the head of that mission in the context of a procedure for the award of a service contract are attributable to the Commission, which has legal capacity to be a defendant under the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Those measures may, therefore, be the subject of judicial review in accordance with the requirements of the general principle that any measure adopted by an institution, body or agency of the European Union which is intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, must be subject to review.

(see paras 26, 31-35)

2.      The mistaken designation in the application of a defendant other than the body responsible for adopting the contested measure does not render the application inadmissible, where the latter contains information which makes it possible to identify unambiguously the party against whom it is made, such as the designation of the contested measure and the body responsible for it. It is only in such a case that the defendant must be considered to be the body responsible for the contested measure, even if not referred to in the introduction to the application. Furthermore, it is not for the General Court to identify the party against which the action should be directed in order to comply with the requirements of Article 44(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 38, 39)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 40, 42)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 45)