# C_2013055EN.01000702.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/7

---

Appeal brought on 31 December 2012 by Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 19 October 2012 in Case T-466/11 Ellinika Nafpigia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH v European Commission

(Case C-616/12 P)

2013/C 55/11

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Ellinika Nafpigia AE, 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH (represented by: K. Khrisogonos and A. Kaidatzis, dikigori)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | set aside the order of the General Court of 19 October 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order of the General Court of 19 October 2012;

| — | uphold the action brought, in accordance with the stated form of order sought by it; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the action brought, in accordance with the stated form of order sought by it;

| — | order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

| — | The General Court misinterpreted the application initiating proceedings, with the result that it impermissibly changed the subject-matter of the case, in that it found the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which is in reality the only contested measure — also to be contested measures or part of the contested measure. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misinterpreted the application initiating proceedings, with the result that it impermissibly changed the subject-matter of the case, in that it found the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which is in reality the only contested measure — also to be contested measures or part of the contested measure.

| — | The General Court misapplied Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in that it held that the contested measure was not defined in its entirety since the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which in reality, however, are neither part of the contested measure nor other contested measures — were not specified individually. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misapplied Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in that it held that the contested measure was not defined in its entirety since the documents and other matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — which in reality, however, are neither part of the contested measure nor other contested measures — were not specified individually. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed.

| — | The General Court misapplied the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in dismissing the action against the decision of 1 December 2010 as out of time although the appellants had not — and continue not to have — acquired full knowledge of that decision and, therefore, when the action was brought the two-month time-limit for initiating proceedings had not even begun. As a result of that ruling, the right to judicial protection and the right of actual access to a court were impermissibly restricted. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misapplied the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in dismissing the action against the decision of 1 December 2010 as out of time although the appellants had not — and continue not to have — acquired full knowledge of that decision and, therefore, when the action was brought the two-month time-limit for initiating proceedings had not even begun. As a result of that ruling, the right to judicial protection and the right of actual access to a court were impermissibly restricted.

| — | The General Court misapplied Articles 64 and 65 of the Rules of Procedure in rejecting the application for adoption of measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry, because it held that the documents and matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — the items whose production was sought — were part of the contested measure, whereas in reality they merely provide reasons for it. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed. |
| --- | --- |

—

The General Court misapplied Articles 64 and 65 of the Rules of Procedure in rejecting the application for adoption of measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry, because it held that the documents and matters on the file in respect of the decision of 1 December 2010 — the items whose production was sought — were part of the contested measure, whereas in reality they merely provide reasons for it. As a result of that ruling, the appellants’ right to judicial protection was impermissibly restricted and the fundamental principle of procedural equality was infringed.

---