7.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/28


Appeal brought on 10 June 2015 by Alexandre Borde and Carbonium against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-314/14: Borde and Carbonium v Commission

(Case C-279/15 P)

(2015/C 294/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Alexandre Borde and Carbonium SAS (represented by: A.B.H. Herzberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Set aside the order of the General Court of 25 March 2015, whereby it:

a.

dismisses the applications as inadmissible; and

b.

orders the Applicants to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.

Declare admissible the Appellants’ application for annulment;

and

a.)

Give final judgment in the matter;

or, alternatively

b)

Refer the case back to the General Court for judgment on the merits;

Alternatively: refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the merits, and for judgment accordingly;

Order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to Article 184, first paragraph of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants submit that the dismissal of their action for annulment was unlawful because (i) the General Court provided an inaccurate and distorted statement of facts, thus disregarding the Appellants’ right to be heard; (ii) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly narrowed down challengeable acts to acts under Article 288 TFEU; (iii) the General Court erred in finding that the contested measures are not decisions under Article 288(4) TFEU; (iv) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly considered decisive whether or not the challenged act is ‘separable from the contractual framework’ and failed to take into account other relevant factors; (v) in applying Article 263(4) TFEU, the General Court incorrectly applied criteria developed for bipolar cases to a tripolar case; (vi) the General Court failed to consider the Appellants’ right to an effective judicial remedy as protected under the European Convention for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.