Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2018:28
Date: 2018-01-23
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Financial provisions;Own resources
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - successful
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 28 June 2018 1. Appeal — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of EU law made by the General Court — Admissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., 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)) 2. Action for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Actionable measure — Action for the annulment of an email of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) brought against the Commission —Communication by email of the rejection of the applicant’s proposal seeking financial assistance — Failure to notify the Commission’s definitive decision — Admissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 55, 56) 2. As regards an action brought against the Commission for the annulment of a decision rejecting a proposal for financial support from the EU, in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), allegedly contained in the email sent to the applicant by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), the General Court erred in law in declaring the action inadmissible and dismissing the appellant’s request for its action to be regarded as directed against the Commission’s decision establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance. Given that, on the date on which the action was lodged, the appellant was not aware of the existence of the Commission decision which, contrary to the requirements stemming from the principle of sound administration, was not, at any time, the subject of notification to the appellant, the latter was not in a position to be able to identify, in its application, that decision as that by which the Commission rejected its proposal and could legitimately regard the INEA’s email as constituting the notification of the rejection of its proposal by the Commission. It follows that the General Court, having regard to the circumstances of the case and in order to guarantee for the appellant the right to effective judicial protection, should have recognised that the subject-matter of the action was the annulment, not of the INEA’s email, to which the appellant erroneously referred in its application before the General Court, but the Commission’s decision. That is all the more so given that the action was expressly directed against the Commission and only the Commission had the power to adopt a refusal decision in the context of the procedure for selecting eligible proposals for a grant under the CEF. (see paras 68, 70-73)