Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2024:1025
Date: 2024-12-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Commercial policy
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

summary of the pleas in law’ which must be stated in any application, for the purposes of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, means that the application must specify the nature of the grounds on which the application is based. Accordingly, it is necessary, in particular, for an action before the General Court to be admissible, that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (judgment of 3 March 2022, WV v EEAS, C‑162/20 P, EU:C:2022:153, paragraphs 67 and 68 and the case-law cited). 69 However, before the General Court, Euranimi did not establish any link between the arguments referred to in paragraph 67 above and its second plea for annulment. 70 It is true that there is nothing to prevent an applicant from developing further in its reply a plea raised in its application. However, it should be observed in the present case that paragraphs 37 to 54 of Euranimi’s reply are included in the first part of that document, which essentially seeks to rebut, ‘on a preliminary basis’, various factual assertions made by the Commission in the introductory part of its defence. Accordingly, that first part of Euranimi’s reply clearly does not concern the second plea in its action for annulment. Only one paragraph in that preliminary part refers, without further clarification, to paragraphs 43 and 45 of that reply. 71 As regards the arguments purportedly set out in the annexes to the application at first instance, it should be observed that, according to the case-law, while the body of the application at first instance may certainly be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the provisions referred to in paragraph 68 above, must appear in the application (judgment of 3 March 2022, WV v EEAS, C‑162/20 P, EU:C:2022:153, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited). 72 In those circumstances, the General Court cannot be criticised for not having made specific findings with respect to the arguments referred to in paragraph 67 above in its assessment of the second plea in law raised before it. 73 As to the remainder, the arguments made by Euranimi on the actual functioning of the market amount to challenging the findings of fact made by the General Court. However, Euranimi has failed to establish and explain with the requisite precision the facts or evidence that the General Court distorted. Those arguments are thereby inadmissible in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraphs 35 and 36 above. 74 In the second place, as regards the claim of distortion of the facts in paragraph 116 of the judgment under appeal, it should be observed that in that paragraph the General Court, referring to paragraph 107 of that judgment, ‘noted that, since the tariff-rate quotas were not exhausted … the safeguard measure cannot be the cause of the alleged incapacity of the EU industry to meet demand in the EU market’. 75 Accordingly, contrary to what Euranimi appears to argue by that claim, the General Court did not refer in paragraph 116 of that judgment to a line of argument made before it by Euranimi, but repeated a factual finding already made in paragraph 107 thereof. While Euranimi has clearly expressed its disagreement with that finding, it has, however, failed to establish any distortion in that regard. 76 In the third place, as regards the arguments relating to the extension of the safeguard measures being inconsistent with the exceptional market condition that arose during the investigation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it suffices to state that Euranimi does not identify in its appeal the arguments put forward in its reply at first instance that the General Court failed to take into account. In those circumstances, the Court of Justice is not in a position to rule effectively on the General Court’s alleged failure to give a ruling. 77 For the foregoing reasons, the second ground of appeal must be rejected as being in part inadmissible and in part unfounded. 78 Since none of the grounds of appeal put forward in support of the present appeal has been successful, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 79 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 80 Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against Euranimi and the latter has been unsuccessful, Euranimi must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & Distributors (Euranimi) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. Jürimäe Jääskinen Gavalec Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 December 2024. A. Calot Escobar K. Lenaerts Registrar President * Language of the case: English.