Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2022
Date: 2014-06-19
Language of the case: Italian
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal
Origin: Italy

summary of the case-law of the Court on the meaning of ‘reasonable period’, the judgment in Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (C‑334/12 RX II, EU:C:2013:134, paragraphs 27 to 34). 20 – See the judgments in Technische Unie v Commission (C‑113/04 P, EU:C:2006:593, paragraph 48) and, by analogy, in Groupe Gascogne v Commission (C‑58/12 P, EU:C:2013:770, paragraphs 73 and 74). 21 – Judgments in Sison v Council (C‑266/05 P, EU:C:2007:75, paragraph 95) and in Sweden and Others v API and Commission (C‑514/07 P, C‑528/07 P and C‑532/07 P, EU:C:2010:541, paragraph 126); and order in EMC Development v Commission (C‑367/10 P, EU:C:2011:203, paragraph 93). 22 – See the judgment in FIAMMandOthers v CouncilandCommission (C‑120/06 P and C‑121/06 P, EU:C:2008:476, paragraph 96 and the case-law cited). 23 – See points 94 to 104 above. 24 – See the judgment in E.ON Energie v Commission (C‑89/11 P, EU:C:2012:738, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). 25 – See, inter alia, the judgment in Eurocoton and Others v Council (C‑76/01 P, EU:C:2003:511, paragraph 47). 26 – Judgments in Henrichs v Commission (C‑396/93 P, EU:C:1995:280, paragraphs 65 and 66), and Edwin v OHMI (C‑263/09 P, EU:C:2011:452, paragraph 78). Although the case-law cited declares such a plea relating to costs to be inadmissible, it would in my opinion be more appropriate to take the view that, in the event of rejection of the other grounds of appeal, there is no longer any need to examine it.