Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Nap Innova Hoteles v CRU

(Case C‑731/17 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible at first instance — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Representation before the EU judicature — Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant — Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

1.	Appeal—Subject matter—Appeal vitiated by the same procedural error as the action brought before the General Court—Legal question concerning the admissibility of the appeal—Examination of the merits—Admissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., 2, TFEU) (see para. 9)

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Conditions relating to a signatory—Status of a third party in relation to the parties—Company represented by a lawyer who is also a director and shareholder of the applicant—Non-compliance with the requirement of independence—Inadmissibility

(Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19)

(see paras 11, 19, 20)

3.	Appeal—Grounds—Error of law relied on not identified—Ground lacking precision—Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2)) (see paras 24, 25, 34)

4.	Appeal—Grounds—Review by the Court of the assessment of the rules of national law relied on by a party—Precluded—Inadmissibility (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 31, 32)

Operative part

1.	The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

2.	Nap Innova Hoteles SL is ordered to bear its own costs.