Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:587
Date: 2024-07-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Provisions governing the Institutions
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Case C‑787/23 P Eugen Tomac v Council of the European Union Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 July 2024 ( Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Law governing the institutions – Article 263 TFEU – Action for annulment – Full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in Romania – Absence of a challengeable act – Required unanimity not achieved – Manifest inadmissibility in part of the action at first instance – Request for a time limit capable of allowing the appeal to be ‘resumed’ – Manifest lack of jurisdiction in part of the General Court of the European Union – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded ) 1. Appeal – Grounds – Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded – Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 181) (see paragraphs 22, 23) 2. Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) and 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2)) (see paragraphs 25-27) 3. Action for failure to act – Obligation to act of the Council – Obligation to adopt a decision of the full application of the provisions of the Schengen acquis in a Member State in the absence of unanimity of members of the Council during the vote – Obligation to adopt such a decision within a certain time period – None (Arts 3(2) and (3) and 4(2) TEU; Art. 265, third para., TFEU; Protocol of 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, Art. 4(2)) (see paragraph 28) 4. Appeal – Grounds – Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d) and 169) (see paragraph 31) See the text of the decision.