ORDER OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)
22 February 2018 (*)
(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union to hear and determine an action seeking annulment of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights and of a decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
In Case C‑701/17 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 24 October 2017,
Vassil Monev Valkov, residing in Lomez (Bulgaria), represented by K. Mladenova, advokat,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Court of Human Rights,
Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria,
defendants at first instance,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of E. Levits, President of the Chamber, M. Berger (Rapporteur) and F. Biltgen, Judges,
Advocate General: M. Wathelet,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
makes the following
Order
1        By his appeal, Mr Vassil Monev Valkov asks the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 27 September 2017, Valkov v European Court of Human Rights and Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria (T‑558/17, not published, EU:T:2017:697) (‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment, first, of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 2 April 2016 dismissing as inadmissible his application No 37241/2007 and, secondly, of Decision 1621/2007 of the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria (‘the contested decisions’).
The proceedings before the General Court and the order under appeal
2        By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 14 August 2017, Mr Valkov brought an action seeking the annulment of the contested decisions and just satisfaction in compensation for the loss which he claims to have suffered.
3        By the order under appeal, the General Court, in accordance with Article 126 of its Rules of Procedure, dismissed that action on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction.
4        The General Court noted in particular, in paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, that, according to Article 256 TFEU and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the General Court has jurisdiction in actions brought under Article 263 TFEU only against acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union.
5        In that respect, the General Court held, in paragraph 7 of the order under appeal, that the authors of the contested decisions were not institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union.
6        In the light of those findings, the General Court held that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by Mr Valkov and that, consequently, that action had to be dismissed, without it being necessary to notify the defendants at first instance.
The appeal
7        Pursuant to Article 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part.
8        In the present case, the Court takes the view that it is necessary to apply that provision.
9        In support of his appeal, Mr Valkov merely submits that the General Court had jurisdiction on the basis of Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on the European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 17 of Protocol No 14 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and requests the Court to set aside the order under appeal, annul the contested decisions and award him compensation.
10      It should be noted that, according to the case-law of the Court, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal (orders of 1 February 2017, Vidmar and Others v Commission, C‑240/16 P, EU:C:2017:89, paragraph 23, and of 22 November 2017, Kaleychev v European Court of Human Rights, C‑424/17 P, not published, EU:C:2017:884, paragraph 10).
11      In the present case, it is clear that Mr Valkov’s appeal, which is limited to a single page, contains no statement of reasons and, consequently, does not meet the requirements that an appeal must satisfy.
12      In any event, it must be recalled that, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, only acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union may be subject to judicial review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. As the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria are not part of those institutions, their decisions cannot be subject to review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Consequently, the General Court was fully entitled in law to decide that Mr Valkov’s action had to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, without it being necessary to notify the defendants at first instance.
13      It follows that, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.
Costs
14      Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.
15      As the present order has been adopted without notification of the appeal to the defendants at first instance, and as the latter could therefore not have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that Mr Valkov must bear his own costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby orders:
1.      The appeal is dismissed.
2.      Mr Vassil Monev Valkov shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 22 February 2018.
A. Calot Escobar
E. Levits
Registrar
President of the Tenth Chamber
*      Language of the case: English.