Proceedings brought by Eurobolt BV.
Date: 2019-07-03
25


As is apparent from settled case-law, the jurisdiction of the Court to give preliminary rulings under Article 267 TFEU concerning the validity of acts of the EU institutions cannot be limited by the grounds on which the validity of those measures may be contested (judgments of 12 December 1972, International Fruit Companyand Others, 21/72 to 24/72, EU:C:1972:115, paragraph 5, and of 16 June 1998, Racke, C‑162/96, EU:C:1998:293, paragraph 26).
28


It should be borne in mind that national courts may examine the validity of an act of the Union and, if they consider that the grounds which they have raised of their own motion or which have been raised by the parties in support of invalidity are unfounded, they may reject those grounds, concluding that the act is completely valid (see, to that effect, judgments of 16 June 1981, Salonia, 126/80, EU:C:1981:136, paragraph 7, and of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost, 314/85, EU:C:1987:452, paragraph 14). By contrast, national courts have no jurisdiction themselves to determine that acts of EU institutions are invalid (judgment of 6 December 2005, Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur, C‑461/03, EU:C:2005:742, paragraph 17).
29


Accordingly, if the grounds put forward by the parties are sufficient to convince the national court that an act of the Union is invalid, that court should, solely on that basis, question the Court of Justice as to the validity of that act, without investigating further. As can be seen from the judgment of 22 October 1987, Foto-Frost (314/85, EU:C:1987:452, paragraph 18), the Court of Justice is in the best position to decide on the validity of pieces of secondary EU legislation, in so far as the EU institutions whose acts are challenged are entitled, under the second paragraph of Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to submit written observations to the Court in order to defend the validity of the acts in question. In addition, under the second paragraph of Article 24 of that Statute, the Court may require the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union not being parties to the case to supply all information which it considers necessary for the purposes of the case before it.
47


In that regard, it follows from the very wording of that provision, which is couched in unconditional terms, that the 10-day period referred to therein is binding (see, by analogy, judgment of 29 July 2010, Greece v Commission, C‑54/09 P, EU:C:2010:451, paragraph 46).
48


Next, it is apparent from recital 25 of the Basic Regulation that, as the information concerned ‘is often of a highly technical nature and involves an elaborate economic and legal analysis’, the time limit laid down in Article 15(2) of that regulation is intended to give the Member States represented in the Advisory Committee enough time to examine that information, in an unhurried manner, before the meeting of that committee (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission, C‑183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704, paragraph 102).
49


Furthermore, the purpose of that time limit is also to enable the governments of the Member States to familiarise themselves, through their representatives in the Advisory Committee, with all relevant information relating to an investigation, so that those governments may, by means of internal and external consultations, define a position in order to protect the specific interests of each of them within that committee (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission, C‑183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704, paragraph 103).
51


In those circumstances, as the Advocate General noted in, inter alia, points 61 and 66 of his Opinion, the requirement to provide the Advisory Committee with all relevant information no later than 10 working days before the meeting of that committee laid down in Article 15(2) of the Basic Regulation constitutes an essential procedural requirement governing the proper conduct of proceedings, breach of which renders the act concerned void (see, by analogy, judgments of 10 February 1998, Germany v Commission, C‑263/95, EU:C:1998:47, paragraph 32, and of 20 September 2017, Tilly-Sabco v Commission, C‑183/16 P, EU:C:2017:704, paragraph 114).