Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015CN0125

Case C-125/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

IO C 155, 11.5.2015, pp. 15–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.5.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/15

Appeal brought on 11 March 2015 by the Court of Justice of the European Union against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

(Case C-125/15 P)

(2015/C 155/17)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. V. Placco and E. Beysen, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne

Form of order sought

—

Set aside the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2015 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union, in so far as it rejects the second to fourth heads of claim made by the CJEU in its application to the General Court under Article 114 of that court’s Rules of Procedure;

—

grant those heads of claim and, accordingly:

—

giving a final ruling on the dispute, dismiss Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S. A.’s action for damages as inadmissible as it is brought against the CJEU (as representative of the European Union);

—

in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice should consider that the fact that the action has been brought against the CJEU and not the Commission (as representative of the EU) does not affect its admissibility but that, in ruling on the preliminary issue raised by the CJEU before it, the General Court should have ordered that the Commission be substituted for the CJEU as defendant, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on the damages claim brought by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A., in accordance with the points of law decided by the Court of Justice;

—

order Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Groupe Gascogne S.A. to pay the costs incurred by the CJEU in the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the CJEU relies on two grounds of appeal, alleging, first, infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, and, second, breach of the General Court’s duty to state reasons.

In the first ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the rules relating to the representation of the European Union before its judicature, the CJEU observes that, in the absence of any express provision specifically governing the representation of the EU before its judicature in actions brought on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, the rules relating to such representation must be inferred from the general principles governing the exercise of judicial functions, in particular the principle of the sound administration of justice and the principle that courts must be independent and impartial.

In its second ground of appeal, the CJEU submits that, in the absence of any specific rebuttal of an argument presented before the General Court which was based on the scope of the judgments in Case C-40/12 P Gascogne Sack v Commission (1) and C-58/12 P Groupe Gascogne v Commission  (2), the order under appeal is vitiated by breach of the duty to state adequate reasons.

(1)  EU:C:2013:768.

(2)  EU:C:2013:770.

Top