Case C-770/23 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2023 in Case T-444/22, HB v Commission
Date: 2023-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ukraine, claim, debt, interest, jurisdiction, powers of the institutions (EU), provision of services, services contract, technical cooperation








C_202402282EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2282


2.4.2024





Appeal brought on 13 December 2023 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 October 2023 in Case T-444/22, HB v Commission
(Case C-770/23 P)
(C/2024/2282)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. Ilkova, L. André and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HB

Forms of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


annul in full or in part the decision as set out in the operative part of the judgment under appeal;










—


give a final judgment in the matter, in accordance with Article [61] of the Statute of the Court of Justice, dismissing the action for annulment of the offsetting decision brought by the appellant at first instance;










—


order HB to pay the costs of the present proceedings before the Court of Justice and of the proceedings before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the Commission puts forward two grounds of appeal:






—


In its first ground, the Commission complains that the General Court erred in law in the assessment of whether the claim is certain, of a fixed amount and due for payment under Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046. (1) That first ground is divided into two parts. In the first part, it is claimed that the General Court made an error of law by equating the assessment of whether a claim is certain, of a fixed amount and due with the assessment of whether it is well founded. In the second part, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law by considering that the dispute constitutes a factor to be taken into account in assessing whether the claim is certain, of a fixed amount and due.










—


In its second ground, the Commission complains that the General Court erred in determining which court had jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of an offsetting decision and in concluding that the Commission did not have the power to adopt an offsetting decision in the present case. That second ground is also divided into two parts. In the first part, the Commission argues that the General Court erred in law in holding that the court hearing the contractual dispute had jurisdiction to assess whether the claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due, whereas that question fell within the jurisdiction of the EU courts as the court reviewing the legality of an act. In the context of the second part, the Commission complains that the General Court erred in law in holding that the conclusions of the case-law arising from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-584/17 P are applicable to the present case, and in holding that the Commission did not have the power to adopt the contested decision.






(1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2282/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)