Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission

(Case C‑34/12 P)

‛Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Action for damages — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Prejudicial statements — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 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 paras 31, 32, 47, 51, 52, 94)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 43)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d)) (see paras 62-64)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Erroneous assessment of the existence of harm and of the ensuing compensation — Review exercised by the Court of Justice — Limits (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para,) (see paras 80, 83)

5. Appeals — 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. 169(2)) (see para. 85)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T‑88/09 Idromacchine and Others v Commission, by which the General Court rejected in part an action for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as the result of the publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union of false information which, inter alia, adversely affected the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, ‘State aid — Italy — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’ — Duty of care — Breach of the rights of the defence — Absence of grounds.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo and Roberto Capuzzo are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine and Others v Commission

(Case C‑34/12 P)

‛Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Action for damages — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Prejudicial statements — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 256 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 paras 31, 32, 47, 51, 52, 94)

2. Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 36 and 53, first para.) (see para. 43)

3. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d)) (see paras 62-64)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Erroneous assessment of the existence of harm and of the ensuing compensation — Review exercised by the Court of Justice — Limits (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para,) (see paras 80, 83)

5. Appeals — 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. 169(2)) (see para. 85)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T‑88/09 Idromacchine and Others v Commission, by which the General Court rejected in part an action for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as the result of the publication in theOfficial Journal of the European Union of false information which, inter alia, adversely affected the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, ‘State aid — Italy — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’ — Duty of care — Breach of the rights of the defence — Absence of grounds.

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.