CELEX: 62016CN0053
Language: en
Date: 2016-01-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-53/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council

30.5.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 191/4
            
         Appeal brought on 29 January 2016 by Mr Carsten René Beul against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 in Case T- T-640/14 Beul v Parliament and Council
   
   (Case C-53/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/07)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Carsten René Beul (represented by: H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, Rechtsanwälte)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The appellant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the order of the General Court of 23 November 2015;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 and, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Grounds of appeal and main arguments
   
   In the action before the General Court, the appellant sought the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC.
   The appellant is a chartered account in Germany (and also an auditor under the law of the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg and the Italian Republic). He is authorised to audit public-interest entities. As an accountant, his whole professional activity is supervised by the chamber of accountants, an entity of public law, of which accountants are members and elect the members of its internal bodies.
   Regulation No 537/2014 (‘the Regulation’) provides that, in auditing public-interest entities, auditors are to be supervised by an authority which is independent, that is also free of State influence. In no circumstances may an active member of the accounting profession be part of that authority, and a former accountant only after a lengthy period of inactivity.
   The appellant considers that the Regulation causes prejudice to him. He claims that the Regulation infringes EU law.
   The General Court dismissed the appellant’s action as inadmissible. It found that the appellant did not have standing to bring proceedings to challenge the Regulation. The General Court based its decision on the ground that the appellant was not individually concerned by the Regulation, since he belongs to the class of persons falling within the abstract remit of the Regulation and cannot rely on any individual rights.
   Against the finding of the General Court, the appellant claims that he is directly and individually concerned by the Regulation. In particular, the circle of addressees concerned by the Regulation is open, not least also because, between the enactment of the Regulation and its entry into force, there is a time in which an indefinite number of persons could fall within the circle of members of the profession.
   The General Court failed to recognises this direct and individual concern. In particular, the circle of members of the profession is, at any given point in time, certain by carrying out the supervision provided for in EU law. The existence of a period of time between enactment and entry into force cannot determine whether there is judicial protection.
   Moreover, the appellant submits that, in finding that there is a lack of individual concern, there is a gap in the law. In the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also protects the freedom to choose an occupation, and the European Convention of Human Rights, that gap in the law must be remedied. That falls within the responsibility and purview of the EU judicature, for it has created the situation in which the gap in the law has arisen.
   
      (1)  OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77.