CELEX: 62017CO0231
Language: en
Date: 2017-07-06 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2017.#Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights.#Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — General Court of the European Union’s lack of jurisdiction over an action to annul a decision of the European Court of Human Rights.#Case C-231/17 P.

ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)
6 July 2017 (*)
(Appeal —Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — General Court of the European Union’s lack of jurisdiction over an action to annul a decision of the European Court of Human Rights)
In Case C‑231/17 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 3 May 2017,

Tsanka Vaskova Vatseva, represented by K.G. Mladenova, advokat,
applicant,
the other party to the proceedings being:

European Court of Human Rights

defendant at first instance,
THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of M. Vilaras, President of the Chamber, M. Safjan and D. Šváby (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: M. Wathelet,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,
makes the following

Order

1        By her appeal, Tsanka Vaskova Vatseva requests the annulment of the order of the General Court of the European Union of 7 April 2017, Vatseva v European Court of Human Rights (T‑920/16, not published, EU:T:2017:280)(‘the order under appeal’), pursuant to which the General Court dismissed the applicant's action seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights of 29 September 2016, which rejected the applicant's application No  49393/16 (‘the decision at issue’) and, second, just satisfaction pursuant to Article 41 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘ECHR’) in compensation for the loss the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the alleged infringement of her rights under Article 6 of the ECHR and under the First Protocol thereto signed at Paris on 20 March 1952. 
 The action before the General Court and the order under appeal

2        By an application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 December 2016, Ms Vatseva brought an action seeking the annulment of the decision at issue and just satisfaction in compensation for the loss she claims to have suffered.

3        By the order under appeal, the General Court rejected that action on the grounds of manifest lack of jurisdiction.

4        The General Court noted in paragraph 6 of the order under appeal, inter alia, that according to Article 256 TFEU, Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 1 to that statute, the General Court has jurisdiction in actions brought under Article 263 TFEU only against acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union.

5        In this respect, the General Court held in paragraph 7 of that order, that the author of the decision at issue was neither an institution, a body, an office nor an agency of the European Union.

6        With regard to the request for compensation for the loss that the applicant claims to have suffered, the General Court noted in paragraph 9 of the order under appeal that, pursuant to Article 268 TFEU, the second and third paragraphs of Article 340 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 188 EA, in the field of non-contractual liability, it has jurisdiction only in actions seeking compensation for damage caused by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union or by their servants in the performance of their duties.

7        In paragraph 10 of that order, the General Court found that the author of the measure alleged to be at the origin of the harm suffered by the applicant was not an institution, a body, an office or an agency of the European Union.

8        In light of those findings, the General Court held that it manifestly did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine Ms Vatseva's action.
 The appeal

9        Pursuant to Article 181 of its Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may at any time, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide by reasoned order to dismiss that appeal in whole or in part.

10      In this instance, the Court takes the view that it must apply that provision.

11      In support of her appeal, Ms Vatseva submits only that the General Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine her action on the basis of Protocol (No 8) relating to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the accession of the Union to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 17 of Protocol No 14 to the ECHR and the Treaty of Lisbon, and requested that the Court set aside the order under appeal, annul the decision at issue and grant her the sum of EUR5 000 in compensation.

12      In this respect, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law of the Court, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal (order of 1 February 2017, Vidmar and Others v Commission, C‑240/16 P, EU:C:2017:89, paragraph 23).

13      In this instance, it is clear that Ms Vatseva's appeal contains no statement of reasons and, consequently, does not meet the requirements that an appeal must satisfy.

14      It follows that, pursuant to Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure, the appeal must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
 Costs

15      Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.

16      As the present order has been adopted prior to notification of the appeal to the defendant at first instance and, therefore, before the latter has incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant must bear her own costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby orders:
1.      The appeal is dismissed.

2.      Tsanka Vazkova Vatseva shall pay her own costs.

Luxembourg, 6 July 2017.

A. Calot Escobar
 
M. Vilaras

Registrar
 
President of the Eighth Chamber

*      Language of the case: English.