ORDER OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)

22 November 2017 ( )

(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 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

In Case C‑424/17 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 14 July 2017,

Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev, represented by K. Mladenova, advokat,

appellant,

the other party to the proceedings being:

European Court of Human Rights,

defendant at first instance,

THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),

composed of E. Levits, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet 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, Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev asks the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 22 June 2017, Kaleychev v European Court of Human Rights (T‑58/17, not published, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2017:452), by which the General Court dismissed his action seeking annulment of a decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 December 2016 which had dismissed as inadmissible his application No 67216/16 (‘the decision at issue’).

The proceedings before the General Court and the order under appeal

2 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 January 2017, Mr Kaleychev brought an action seeking annulment of the decision at issue.

3 By the order under appeal, the General Court 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, Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I to that statute, 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 author of the decision at issue was not an institution, a body, an office or an agency 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 Kaleychev, that that action therefore had to be dismissed and that it was not necessary to notify the defendant at first instance thereof.

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 Kaleychev claims, although without stating any reasons, that the order under appeal must be set aside in so far as it is the result of a denial of justice by the General Court. He merely asserts that that order is null and void, unjust and vitiated by a failure to state reasons. According to Mr Kaleychev, the General Court had jurisdiction to rule on his action pursuant to Protocol No 8 relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950.

10 First, it should be noted that, according to the Court’s case-law, 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 that appeal (orders of 1 February 2017, Vidmar and Others v Commission, C‑240/16 P, EU:C:2017:89, paragraph 23, and of 6 July 2017, Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights, C‑231/17 P, not published, EU:C:2017:526, paragraph 12).

11 In the present case, however, it is clear that Mr Kaleychev’s appeal contains no statement of reasons and, consequently, does not meet the requirements that an appeal must satisfy.

12 Second, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, only the acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union may be subject to judicial review by the Court of Justice. Since the European Court of Human Rights is not one of those institutions, its decisions cannot be subject to review by the Court of Justice. Consequently, the General Court was fully entitled to decide that Mr Kaleychev’s action had to be dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and that it was not necessary to notify the defendant at first instance thereof.

13 It follows that, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

Costs

14 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, 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 defendant at first instance, and as the latter could therefore not have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that Mr Kaleychev must bear his own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Tenth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Vilislav Andreev Kaleychev shall bear his own costs.





Luxembourg, 22 November 2017.





A. Calot Escobar E. Levits