ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)
6 March 2014 (1)
(Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T-42/14,
Consortium of the BEE Proposal, represented by P.F. Borges, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises,
defendant,
APPLICATION seeking the reassessment by the General Court of the proposal submitted by the applicant in the framework of the Call for Proposals 2013 for activities related to the Intelligent-Energy Europe Programme (CIP-IEE-2013),
THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of M.E. Martins Ribeiro (Rapporteur), President, S. Gervasoni and L. Madise, 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 15 January 2014, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– reassess the evaluation score obtained by the proposal submitted by the applicant in the framework of the Call for Proposals 2013 for activities related to the Intelligent-Energy Europe Programme (CIP-IEE-2013);
– ask the defendant to produce the proposal submitted to it by the applicant.
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 case at hand, the applicant requests, by its application, that the Court give a ruling reassessing the evaluation score of the proposal it submitted in the framework of the Call for Proposals 2013 for activities related to the Intelligent-Energy Europe Programme (CIP-IEE-2013).
6 It must be noted that the General Court does not have jurisdiction on the basis of Article 263 TFEU to assume the role of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies or the national authorities in charge of implementing European Union law (order in Case T‑73/99 Meyer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II‑1739, paragraph 12).
7 Furthermore, when exercising a review of legality under Article 263 TFEU, the General Court has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union or to assume their role (see, inter alia, Joined Cases T‑374/94, T‑375/94, T‑384/94 and T‑388/94 European Night Services and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II‑3141, paragraph 53).
8 The applicant requests further that the Court ask the defendant to produce the proposal the former submitted in the framework of the Call for Proposals 2013 for activities related to the Intelligent-Energy Europe Programme (CIP-IEE-2013). In this context, it suffices to note that as the General Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the first form of order sought by the applicant, it is no longer necessary to rule on the request for production of a document.
9 It follows from the above considerations that the present action must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the defendant.
Costs
10 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 (Second Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay its own costs.
Luxembourg, 6 March 2014.
E. Coulon | | M. E. Martins Ribeiro |