Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:370
Date: 2011-06-09
Based on: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version 2008)
Subject matter: Public procurement in the European Union
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Greece

Summary of the Judgment 1. Procedure – Plea of inadmissibility – Obligation to submit a plea by separate document – Limits (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114) 2. Appeals – Interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Appeal capable of securing an advantage to the party bringing it – Scope 3. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1), first para., (c)) 1. Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in no way requires every plea of inadmissibility to be submitted by separate document. On the contrary, the submission of such a plea by separate document is necessary only if the party submitting it intends to ask the General Court for a decision on the admissibility of the action without going to the substance of the case. Thus, a plea of inadmissibility may be raised in a defence and examined by the General Court when it adjudicates on the action. (see paras 43-45) 2. An applicant cannot have a legitimate interest in annulment of a decision when it is already certain that that decision which concerns it cannot be other than reconfirmed. In addition, a plea for annulment is inadmissible on the ground of lack of interest in bringing proceedings when, even if that plea were well founded, annulment of the contested act on the basis of that plea would not give the applicant satisfaction. Thus, the General Court, after rejecting a first plea in law, may find that it is no longer necessary to adjudicate on the other pleas raised by the applicant, if they would not have enabled it to succeed in its action. (see paras 49-50) 3. An appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the General Court’s decision which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by a ground of appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error allegedly vitiating the decision under appeal, merely reproduces arguments previously submitted before the General Court. Such a ground of appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of a plea submitted before the General Court, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake. In addition, a mere abstract statement of a plea in an appeal, unsupported by more specific information, does not fulfil the duty to state the reasons for an appeal. That is the case when a ground of appeal simply refers to a number of provisions of European Union law, without showing that they are applicable in the present case and without setting out in what respect those provisions have been infringed. (see paras 55, 61)