Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case C‑259/14 P)

‛Appeal — Contracts for projects on the mediation procedure — Decision to proceed with partial recovery of an advance payment made to the appellant company following an audit — Inadmissibility of the action — Legal representation — Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — 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.) (see paras 17-21, 40, 41)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Applicant company represented by the chairperson of its management board — Breach of the independence requirement (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras) (see paras 23-28)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Independent interpretation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras) (see paras 34-36)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 42-44)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. ADR Center Srl is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case C‑259/14 P)

‛Appeal — Contracts for projects on the mediation procedure — Decision to proceed with partial recovery of an advance payment made to the appellant company following an audit — Inadmissibility of the action — Legal representation — Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant’

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — 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.) (see paras 17-21, 40, 41)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Applicant company represented by the chairperson of its management board — Breach of the independence requirement (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras) (see paras 23-28)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Status of a third party in relation to the parties — Independent interpretation (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras) (see paras 34-36)

4. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 42-44)

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.