Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

7.4.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/17

Appeal brought on 24 January 2014 by Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 11 November 2013 in Case T-545/12 Morey and Others v Commission

(Case C-331/14 P)

2014/C 102/23

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Mory SA, in liquidation, Mory Team, in liquidation, Superga Invest (represented by: B. Vatier and F. Loubières, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

—

set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court;

—

refer the case back so that a decision may be given on the substance by the General Court, under conditions which guarantee that the preparatory inquiries are impartial;

—

provide that the costs are to be determined on the basis of the outcome of the main proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants rely on two grounds of appeal.

In first place, the General Court misinterpreted Article 263 TFEU by failing to recoginse that the appellants have an interest in bringing proceedings. The appellants contend that the question whether an action is admissible is dependent on the ability of applicants who are not the addresses of a decision to show that the decision is of direct and individual concerned to them. According to the applicants, that is the only condition laid down by the Treaty for determining whether an action is admissible. Moreover, the Treaty makes no reference to an interest in bringing proceedings as an autonomous condition for bringing proceedings.

The appellants state that they have an interest in bringing proceedings for the following reasons. First, the fact that Mory SA was an interested party in the proceedings which led to the Sernam 1, Sernam 2 and Sernam 3 decisions and that it intervened personally in those proceedings confers upon it an interest in bringing proceedings against a decision on the manner in which the last of those decisions is to be enforced. Second, the fact that the appellants are parties in two sets of proceedings pending before the French courts also establishes their interest in bringing proceedings. Third, Superga Invest’s interest in bringing proceedings derives directly from that of Mory SA and Mory Team, in which Superga Invest was the principal shareholder, and its participation in the proceedings referred to above. Lastly, the appellants’ interest in bringing proceedings derives from the fact that they were denied the procedural right to secure the instigation of a formal investigation procedure, in spite of the fact that they apprised the Commission by letter of the fact that Sernam’s assets had been taken over by Geodis.

In second place, the appellants take issue with the General Court for failing to conclude that they were ‘directly and individually concerned’ for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU. The General Court was incorrect not to examine the objections of inadmissibility raised by the Commission alleging a lack of individual concern on the part of the appellants. In the appellants’ view, there can be no doubt as to their being individually concerned according to the case-law of the General Court.