ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
16 March 2010 (1)
(Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑530/09,
S.C. Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare si indexare digitalizată S.R.L., established in Braşov (Romania), represented by N. O. Curelea, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Parliament,
and
Council of the European Union,
defendants,
APPLICATION for annulment of Article 5, first paragraph, last sentence, of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ L 200, p. 35),
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of A. W. H. Meij (Rapporteur), President, V. Vadapalas and L. Truchot, 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 General Court on 14 November 2009, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul Article 5, first paragraph, last sentence, of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ L 200, p. 35);
– order the defendants to pay all costs incurred in the present proceedings.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible the General Court 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 Under the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, proceedings for annulment must be instituted within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter. Under Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure, where the period of time allowed for commencing proceedings against a measure adopted by an institution runs from the publication of that measure, that period shall run from the end of the 14th day after publication thereof in the Official Journal of the European Union. In accordance with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that time-limit is to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
6 According to settled case law, that period of time is a matter of public policy, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and the Court must ascertain of its own motion whether that time-limit was observed (see, inter alia, Case C‑246/95 Coen [1997] ECR I‑403, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases T‑121/96 and T‑151/96 Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission [1997] ECR II‑1355, paragraphs 38 and 39).
7 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the disputed measure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 August 2000. Accordingly, the application for annulment fell to be brought no later than 1 November 2000. It follows that the application, lodged more than nine years after the expiry of the applicable time limit, is manifestly out of time.
8 In addition, the applicant has not established or even pleaded the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure which would allow the Court to vary the time-limit in question on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which applies to the procedure before the General Court by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute. Nor has it invoked the occurrence of an excusable error.
9 It follows from all of the above considerations that the action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the defendants.
Costs
10 As the present order was adopted 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 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, 16 March 2010.