CELEX: 62012CN0615
Language: en
Date: 2012-12-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-615/12 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission

2.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 63/13
            
         Appeal brought on 24 December 2012 by Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06 Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater v European Commission
   
   (Case C-615/12 P)
   2013/C 63/21
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Appellant: Arbos, Gesellschaft für Musik und Theater (represented by: H. Karl, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 in Case T-161/06, the case to be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union;
            
         
               —
            
            
               in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   The appellant’s appeal is founded on breach of procedural requirements, their unlawful application having led to the action being dismissed as inadmissible, as a result of which the appellant’s interests have been adversely affected, and also infringement of European Union law by the General Court.
   In its decision the General Court dismissed the application as inadmissible as it was said not to have been sufficiently reasoned having regard to the legal basis, and thus did not comply with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. That is not reflected in the case-file. The requirements of Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure were applied arbitrarily and contrary to the purpose of the provision.
   The General Court also failed to take any account at all, in relation to the question of merit in accordance with Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, of the further submissions in the appellant’s reply and of the arguments in its observations on the plea of inadmissibility, or took account of them solely in order to argue their inadequacy, and thereby contrary to the rules of procedure and disregarding all arguments refused to allow the application to be admitted.
   By its decision to dismiss the application on the ground of inadmissibility the General Court took a decision that could have been taken in that form and challenged as such as long ago as 2007, and thereby infringed any procedural foreseeability, transparency and efficiency. Accordingly there has been no fair and balanced procedure.