Order — ECLI:EU:C:2010:629
Date: 2010-10-22
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Romania

summary of the pleas in law and of the main supporting arguments. As far as Seacid is aware, no notice has been published, which has prevented the appellant’s case being heard in public, in breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 11 In response to the first part of the first ground of appeal, regarding the General Court’s obligation to hear the Advocate General before giving a decision on an action, the Court finds that that obligation must be understood in the light of Articles 2(2), 18 and 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, from which it is apparent, first, that the designation of a Judge of the General Court as Advocate General is optional where the General Court sits as a Chamber and, second, that references to the Advocate General in those Rules of Procedure are to apply only where a Judge has in fact been designated as Advocate General. 12 In the present case, the General Court sat as a Chamber without designating a Judge to perform the function of Advocate General. 13 Accordingly, the obligation to hear the Advocate General laid down in Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court was not applicable (see, in particular, the order of 25 June 2009 in Case C‑580/08 P Srinivasan v European Ombudsman, paragraphs 35 to 37). 14 Consequently, the appellant’s argument concerning breach of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is irrelevant. 15 It follows from the foregoing that the first part of the first ground must be dismissed as clearly unfounded. 16 As regards the second part of the first ground of appeal, it should be recalled that Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court allows that court, where it is clear that it has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, by reasoned order, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings. 17 The expression ‘without taking further steps in the proceedings’ in that provision allows the General Court, where the conditions of that provision are fulfilled, to give a decision on an action without previously publishing a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union (see the order in Srinivasan v European Ombudsman, paragraphs 33 and 34). 18 Accordingly, the second part of the first ground of appeal must be dismissed as clearly unfounded. 19 Consequently, the first ground of appeal must be rejected as clearly unfounded. The second ground of appeal 20 In the first part of the second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law, the appellant criticises the General Court for having dismissed its application as inadmissible, on the ground that it should have been brought before 1 November 2000, that is two months after publication of Directive 2000/35 in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 August 2000. Seacid points out that its company was formed only in 2007 and that the Republic of Romania became a member of the European Union only on 1 January 2007. On that basis, that Member State could not as a matter of fact have initiated proceedings against that directive. 21 As a preliminary point, it must be observed that the General Court correctly stated that it is entitled to examine of its own motion compliance with the time-limit for bringing an action, as it is a matter of public policy (see Case 79/70 Müllers v ESC [1971] ECR 689, paragraph 6, and the order of 9 July 2009 in Case C‑498/08 P Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission, paragraph 19). 22 Under the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the proceedings provided for in that article are to be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. 23 In the present case, it is not disputed that Directive 2000/35 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 8 August 2000 and that the appellant brought an application for annulment of the last sentence of Article 5(1) of that directive on 14 November 2009. 24 The General Court was correct in stating that the two-month period of time allowed for commencing proceedings, provided for in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, started to run, in accordance with Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, from the end of the 14th day after publication of the directive at issue on 8 August 2000 and that it expired on 1 November 2000, in view of the extension on account of distance by 10 days and the extension of the period where it would otherwise end on a Sunday or official holiday. 25 Given the fact that time-limits for bringing proceedings are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing European Union measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely, the date of publication, if there is one, is the decisive criterion for determining the starting point of the period prescribed for initiating proceedings (see the order in Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission, paragraph 22). 26 Consequently, the appellant cannot rely upon the argument that it was unable to challenge the directive at issue because it was not legally formed or the Republic of Romania was not part of the European Union at the time when the period prescribed for bringing proceedings was still running. 27 As the General Court correctly pointed out, the period prescribed for bringing proceedings, laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, applies to all persons irrespective of their situation on the date that the measure was published. 28 Accordingly, the first part of the second ground of appeal must be dismissed as clearly unfounded. 29 The second part of the second ground of appeal relates to ensuring effective judicial protection. In the appellant’s submission, the case-law of the Court, in particular Case 294/83 Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339 and Case C‑263/02 P Commission v Jégo‑Quéré [2004] ECR I‑3425, Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, were infringed because the General Court held that Seacid had not brought its action within the prescribed time-limits. 30 In so far as the appellant relies on the right to effective judicial protection, it must be pointed out that that right is in no way undermined by the strict application of European Union rules concerning procedural time-limits which, according to settled case-law, meets the requirement of legal certainty and the need to avoid all discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice (Case 152/85 Misset v Council [1987] ECR 223, paragraph 11, and the order in Case C‑406/01 Germany v Parliament and Council [2002] ECR I‑4561, paragraph 20). 31 The second part of the second ground of appeal must be dismissed as clearly unfounded and, consequently, the second ground of appeal must also be dismissed as clearly unfounded. 32 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that, pursuant to Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure, the appeal must be dismissed as clearly unfounded. Costs 33 Under Article 69(1) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 118 of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. 34 Since this order was made before the appeal was served on the defendants and, therefore, before they could incur any costs, it is sufficient to decide that the appellant will bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. Sistemul electronic de arhivare, criptare şi indexare digitalizată Srl (Seacid) shall bear its own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.