Case C-397/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2012 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission
Date: 2012-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of passengers, indemnification, infringement of EU law, right to justice, transport company








C_2012331EN.01001401.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/14






Appeal brought on 28 August 2012 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission
(Case C-397/12 P)
(2012/C 331/22)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (represented by: E. Deshoulières, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Set aside in its entirety the order of inadmissibility of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11;










—


Uphold the claims made by the applicant at first instance, namely:






—


order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission jointly and severally to compensate SARL Transports Schiocchet — Excursions for the loss which it has suffered, which amounts to EUR 8 372 483;










—


rule that the sums thus awarded are to bear interest at the statutory rate to run from notification of the preliminary claim for compensation to the European Commission;














—


Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, on the basis of Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises four complaints against the order of the General Court, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law its application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.
Firstly, the applicant submits that the General Court ruled on the gravity of the wrongful act of the organs of the European Union when a mere infringement of a higher rule of law by an institution of the European Union would suffice to constitute a wrongful act by an institution of the European Union and that the General Court, when examining the admissibility of the application, may rule only on the manifest absence of wrongful act and not on the gravity thereof.
Secondly, the applicant argues that the General Court did not deal with all of the applicant’s arguments. In particular, the General Court did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that Regulation No 684/92 (1) did not provide for any penalty against the Member States which do not comply with the authorisation procedure which it institutes.
Thirdly, the applicant disputes the decision of the General Court in that the General Court considered that the applicant’s right to an effective remedy was indeed safeguarded in the context of the system introduced by Regulation No 684/92.
Lastly, the applicant claims that, in its decision, the General Court failed to have regard to the Commission’s liability by accepting its wrongful failures to act. In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission neither drafted the follow-up report required under Regulation No 684/92 nor took into consideration the situation of economic operators in infringement of Article 94 TFEU.


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).