Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2019:387
Date: 2019-06-06
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: European Investment Bank (EIB);External relations;Economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries
Procedure: Arbitration clause - successful;Arbitration clause - application inadmissible

summary of the pleas in law and, where appropriate, to submit or offer any evidence when the application is lodged. 23 However, the EIB has not provided any evidence to enable the Court to assess the existence and extent of the charges in question. The third head of claim is therefore inadmissible. 24 By the fourth head of claim, the EIB seeks a declaration that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default for all instalments which fall due and remain unpaid after the date of the application along with the corresponding default interest and, consequently, asks the Court to order the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the sums due to the European Union in respect of those instalments, by way of the principal amount, interest and contractual default interest from the due date of each instalment up to the time that payment is made. 25 In that regard, it must be recalled that, under Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure, an applicant is required to state the subject matter of the proceedings in the application initiating proceedings. The EU Courts cannot therefore carry out a speculative review of hypothetical circumstances which have yet to be confirmed (see, to that effect and by analogy, judgment of 26 February 2015, Sabbagh v Council, T‑652/11, not published, EU:T:2015:112, paragraph 27). 26 In the present case, it must be held that the head of claim in question, since it relates only to hypothetical circumstances, is manifestly inadmissible. Substance of the action 27 It must be held that the action, in so far as it seeks that the Syrian Arab Republic be ordered to pay the European Union, represented by the EIB, the sums of the unpaid instalments, contractual interest and default interest, is not manifestly lacking any foundation in law. 28 First, it is apparent from the case file that, on the basis of the loan agreement, the EIB granted the Syrian Arab Republic a loan in several tranches and, secondly, it is not apparent from those documents that the latter has made payments relating to the principal amount, contractual interest and default interest as regards the 11 instalments at issue, despite notices being sent by the EIB. 29 Consequently, it is necessary to uphold the form of order sought by the EIB and order the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the European Union, represented by the EIB, the sum of EUR 2 184 271.58 which fell due on 25 August 2017 by way of the principal amounts, contractual interest and default interest. 30 Under Article 3(2) of the general conditions of the loan agreement, those sums are to bear default interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 25 August 2017 up to the date of payment. Costs 31 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Syrian Arab Republic has been largely unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the form of order sought by the EIB. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) hereby: 1. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 2 184 271.58; 2. Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made; 3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 4. Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs. Berardis Spielmann Csehi Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 June 2019. E. Coulon G. Berardis Registrar President * Language of the case: English.