Provisional text
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
22 June 2017 (1)
(Action for annulment – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T-58/17,
Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev, represented by K. G. Mladenova, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Court of Human Rights,
defendant,
APPLICATION FOR annulment of the decision of the Court of Human Rights of 15 December 2016 rejecting the applicant’s application No 67216/16 as being inadmissible.
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),
composed of I. Pelikánová (Rapporteur), President, P. Nihoul and J. Svenningsen, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 25 January 2017, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 December 2016 which rejected the applicant’s application No. 67216/16 as being inadmissible.
Law
3 Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, where it is clear that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, it may decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
4 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material 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, by its application, the applicant requests that the Court annul a decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
6 The jurisdiction of the General Court is set out in Article 256 TFEU, as specified by Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I to that statute. Under those provisions, the General Court has jurisdiction in actions brought under Article 263 TFEU only against acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union.
7 In the present case, it is evident that the author of the contested measure 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 it is clear that the Court lacks jurisdiction, 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 his own costs pursuant to Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 22 June 2017.