# C_2013032EN.01000601.xml

| 2.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/6

---

Appeal brought on 23 November 2012 by the Commune de Millau and the Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Joined Cases T-168/10 and T-572/10 European Commission v SEMEA and Commune de Millau

(Case C-531/12 P)

2013/C 32/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Commune de Millau, Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA) (represented by: F. Bleykasten, lawyer)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 September 2012, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 September 2012,

Giving judgment itself,

| — | declare that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application brought by the Commission against the Commune de Millau, in Case T-572/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the General Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the application brought by the Commission against the Commune de Millau, in Case T-572/10;

| — | refer the Commission back to appeal before the competent French courts; |
| --- | --- |

—

refer the Commission back to appeal before the competent French courts;

| — | declare inadmissible the application brought by the Commission against the SEMEA, in Case T-168/10; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare inadmissible the application brought by the Commission against the SEMEA, in Case T-168/10;

As to the substance,

| — | state that the obligation which is the basis for the Commission’s complaint is time-barred under French law; |
| --- | --- |

—

state that the obligation which is the basis for the Commission’s complaint is time-barred under French law;

| — | reject the Commission’s claims directed against the Commune de Millau and against the SEMEA; |
| --- | --- |

—

reject the Commission’s claims directed against the Commune de Millau and against the SEMEA;

In the alternative,

| — | rule that the Commission has infringed the principles of legal certainty and of sound administration; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the Commission has infringed the principles of legal certainty and of sound administration;

| — | rule that the European Union has thus incurred non-contractual liability vis-à-vis the Commune de Millau and the SEMEA; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the European Union has thus incurred non-contractual liability vis-à-vis the Commune de Millau and the SEMEA;

| — | order the Commission to pay the Commune de Millau and SEMEA a principal sum corresponding to EUR 41 012, plus interest and ancillary sums calculated according to French law and running until the date of the judgment to be delivered; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the Commune de Millau and SEMEA a principal sum corresponding to EUR 41 012, plus interest and ancillary sums calculated according to French law and running until the date of the judgment to be delivered;

In any event,

| — | declare that the costs of the present proceedings are to be borne by the Commission |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the costs of the present proceedings are to be borne by the Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants raise four grounds of appeal against the General Court’s judgment.

Firstly, the Commune de Millau claims that the General Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application brought against it. According to the appellant, it is impossible for a legal person governed by French law to conclude an arbitration clause by means of a stipulation for the benefit of a third party. In the appellant’s view, there is no convention under which the Commune de Millau could have stipulated an arbitration clause for the benefit of the Commission.

Secondly, the SEMEA claims that, by transferring its assets and liabilities to a partner in the form of a legal person, still solvent and governed by public law (the Commune de Millau), while it itself was in a state of insolvency, it legitimately liquidated its rights and obligations of a social nature.

Thirdly, the appellants argue that the General Court erred in law in so far as it failed to comply with the legal provision applicable as regards limitation of the action. The disputed claim arose during trade between the SEMEA and the Commission. Notwithstanding the administrative nature of the contract between the SEMEA and the Commission, the rule on limitation applicable in the present case is, according to the appellants, Article 189a, now Article 110-4 of the French Code du Commerce (Commercial Code). The appellants therefore submit that the Commission’s claim is time-barred.

Lastly, the appellants criticise the General Court for not having acknowledged the Commission’s liability, even though its failure to act, for 12 years, to recover its claim, constitutes negligence and infringes Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The significant amount of interest claimed by the Commission is also linked to the Commission’s failure to recover its claim, so that there is indeed a causal link between the alleged harm and the Commission’s conduct. The appellants thus claim that the harm is linked to the impossibility for them of taking measures in due time to address the Commission’s complaint.

---