Order — ECLI:EU:T:2018:804
Date: 2018-11-19
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Economic and monetary policy
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

Summary — Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 19 November 2018 1. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Actions brought against the author of the contested measure — Application brought against the Commission for annulment of a measure of the Single Resolution Board — Inadmissibility — Plea of illegality raised by the applicant against a Commission regulation — Irrelevant (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation 2015/63) 2. Actions for annulment — Time limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the measure within a reasonable time once its existence is known — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) 3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Identification obligation on the EU Courts — None (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76) 4. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Actions seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become final — Inadmissibility (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para. TFEU) 5. Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — Plea inadmissible (Art. 277 TFEU) 1. An action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU must be brought against the EU institution, body, office or agency that adopted the measure in question. In that regard, since a plea that a measure of general application under Article 277 TFEU is inapplicable does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea, a plea of illegality raised by an applicant against a Commission regulation is not sufficient to bring that institution before the EU Courts where the contested decision does not emanate from that institution. (see paras 19, 21) 2. In the absence of publication or notification, it is for the party which learns of a decision concerning it to request the whole text thereof within a reasonable period and the period for bringing an action can begin to run only from the moment at which the third party concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content of the decision in question and of the reasons on which it is based. Subject to that proviso, the period for bringing an action can begin to run only from the moment at which the third party concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the act in question, in such a way as to enable it to effectively exercise its right of action. The reasonable period in which to request communication of a decision after becoming aware of its existence is not a pre-determined period that can automatically be inferred from the period for bringing an action for annulment, but one that depends on the circumstances of the particular case. As regards the concept of a reasonable period, it has been held that a two-month period, calculated from the date on which a party became aware of the existence of a decision in order to request its communication, exceeds a reasonable period. It has also been held that a request to be sent the full text of a decision, made more than four months after the applicant became aware of the existence of the measure, has to be regarded as being outside any reasonable period. Accordingly, an action brought over one year after the applicant became aware of the decision is manifestly out of time and must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. (see paras 33, 39-41, 47) 3. According to Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application must state the subject matter of the proceedings and be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the EU Courts to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. Accordingly, an applicant, whose responsibility it is to comply with that article, cannot task the EU Courts with identifying the subject matter of the action in its place and the EU Courts cannot be required to do so. (see para. 51) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 56-58) 5. See the text of the decision. (see para. 65)