EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CO0279
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016.
Alexandre Borde and Carbonium v European Commission.
Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party — Action for annulment — Right to an effective judicial remedy.
Case C-279/15 P.
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016.
Alexandre Borde and Carbonium v European Commission.
Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party — Action for annulment — Right to an effective judicial remedy.
Case C-279/15 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Borde and Carbonium v Commission
(Case C‑279/15 P) ( 1 )
‛Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Intra-ACP programme (African, Caribbean and Pacific States) of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — European Commission’s request to terminate the mission of an expert chosen by the other contracting party — Action for annulment — Right to an effective judicial remedy’
1. |
Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted — Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Necessity of indicating precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and showing the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion — Requirement for the distortion to be obvious from the documents on the Court’s file (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 168(1)(d)) (see paras 28, 29) |
2. |
Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action for annulment of letters sent by an institution to a contractor proposing replacement of an expert involved in the performance of a framework contract — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU, 274 TFEU) (see paras 37-39, 43) |
3. |
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures not of direct and individual concern to them — Inadmissibility — Judicial protection ensured by the action for damages (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 268 TFEU; Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 54, 55) |
Operative part
1. |
The appeal is dismissed. |
2. |
Mr Borde and Carbonium SAS shall pay the costs jointly and severally. |
( 1 ) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.