# C_2016027EN.01002001.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/20

---

Appeal brought on 13 November 2015 by the Slovak Republic against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission

(Case C-593/15 P)

(2016/C 027/24)

Language of the case: Slovak

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The Slovak Republic claims that the Court should:

| (i) | set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

Slovak Republic

European Commission

| (ii) | itself rule on the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on the substance of the application; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

itself rule on the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on the substance of the application;

| (iii) | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the event that the Court should conclude that it does not have sufficient information to make a final decision on the Commission’s objection of inadmissibility, the Slovak Republic claims, in the alternative, that the Court should:

| (i) | set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

set aside in its entirety the order of the General Court of 14 September 2015 in Case T-678/14 Slovak Republic v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the Slovak Republic’s application, brought under Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for annulment of the European Commission’s decision, contained in its letter of 15 July 2014, formally demanding the Slovak Republic to make funds available corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources;

Slovak Republic

European Commission

| (ii) | refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on both the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and the substance of that application; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

refer the case back to the General Court for that latter court to rule on both the admissibility of the Slovak Republic’s application and the substance of that application;

| (iii) | order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Slovak Republic puts forward two grounds in support of its appeal:

| 1. | In the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court erred in law so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law, (ii) the criterion of the institution’s competence in the assessment of whether the contested act was open to challenge, and (iii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the first ground of appeal, the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court erred in law so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law, (ii) the criterion of the institution’s competence in the assessment of whether the contested act was open to challenge, and (iii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation.

| 2. | In the alternative, in the second ground of appeal the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court stated inadequate reasons in the order under appeal so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law and (ii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation, which is confirmed by the fact that it applied (iii) identical reasoning in cases involving different facts. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the alternative, in the second ground of appeal the Slovak Republic alleges that the General Court stated inadequate reasons in the order under appeal so far as concerns (i) the nature of the funds demanded and the applicability of the legal rules concerning own resources and the related case-law and (ii) the right of access to a court and the urgency of the situation, which is confirmed by the fact that it applied (iii) identical reasoning in cases involving different facts.

---