Case T‑289/13

Ledra Advertising Ltd

v

European Commission
and
European Central Bank (ECB)

(Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Summary — Order of the General Court (First Chamber), 10 November 2014

1.      Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

2.      Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Limits — Jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a protocol of agreement concluded between a Member State and the European Stability Mechanism — Not included

(Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(4))

3.      Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

4.      Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage arising from institution’s failure to act — Burden of proof

(Art. 340 TFEU)

5.      Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Limits — Jurisdiction to review the legality of acts not emanating from EU institutions, organs or bodies — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU)

6.      Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Application for interim measures — Application submitted in the same document as the main action — Inadmissibility

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(3))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 33, 34)

2.      Under the provisions of Article 268 TFEU and the second and third paragraphs of Article 340 TFEU, in the case of non-contractual liability, the General Court has jurisdiction only in disputes relating to compensation for damage caused by the institutions of the European Union or by its servants in the performance of their duties. Consequently, a claim for compensation that is directed against the European Union and is based on the mere illegality of an act or course of conduct that has not been adopted by an institution of the European Union or by its servants must be rejected as inadmissible.

That applies to a claim for compensation based on the illegality of certain provisions of a protocol of agreement adopted jointly by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and by a Member State and signed by the Member State of the one part and the Vice-President of the Commission on the Commission’s behalf, of the other. It is apparent from Article 13(4) of the ESM Treaty that the Commission is to sign the protocol of agreement only on behalf of the ESM. In that regard, although the ESM Treaty entrusts the Commission and the European Central Bank with certain tasks relating to the implementation of the objectives of that Treaty, the duties conferred on the Commission and the ECB within the ESM Treaty do not entail any power to make decisions of their own, and the activities pursued by those two institutions within the ESM Treaty commit only the ESM. Consequently, it cannot be held that the adoption of the said protocol of agreement originated with the Commission or the ECB.

(see paras 42-47)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 49, 50)

4.      The condition relating to a causal link required by Article 340 TFEU presupposes the existence of a sufficiently direct causal nexus between the conduct of the EU institutions and the damage. In that regard, in cases where the conduct allegedly giving rise to the damage pleaded consists in refraining from taking action, it is particularly necessary to be certain that that damage was actually caused by the inaction complained of and could not have been caused by conduct separate from that alleged against the defendant institution.

(see paras 52, 53)

5.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 56, 58)

6.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 61)