Case C‑531/12 P

Commune de Millau

and

Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA)

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant contract concerning a local development action — Recovery of part of the sums paid — Assumption of debt — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Limitation period — Liability of the Commission’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 June 2014

1. Judicial proceedings — Representation of the parties — Possibility of remedying a defect in the authority to act by the later production of any document confirming the existence of such authority

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 119(4) and 168(4))

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

3. Appeals — 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

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Period of more than 12 years during which the Commission took no action in a recovery procedure — Default interest due during that period greater than the amount of the principal debt — Harm directly attributable to that failure to take action — Liability of the Commission

   (Art. 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(3))

1.  Articles 119(4) and 168(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice must be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to remedy a failure to grant an authority to act on the date on which the appeal was lodged by means of an ex post submission of any document confirming the existence of that authority. Consequently, even if the lawyers acting for the appellant did not, at the date on which the present appeal was lodged, have authority to act on behalf of that appellant, the fact remains that, following the appointment of an ad hoc agent, that agent was validly empowered to confirm his intention that that appellant join in the appeal brought by another appellant.

   (see paras 33, 34)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 47, 48)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 55, 56)

4.  In accordance with the general principle of good administration, which is included among the guarantees conferred by the EU legal order in administrative proceedings and which is now enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is for the EU institutions to conduct recovery procedures with due diligence and to ensure that each procedural step is taken within a reasonable time following the previous step.

   Consequently, since the Commission took no action for more than 12 years, such a failure being unjustified by either the complexity of the case or other specific circumstances such as would justify that delay, and that inaction has resulted in the amount of default interest claimed exceeding the disputed debt, the default interest accrued during the period of the Commission’s inactivity of more than 12 years is directly attributable to the Commission’s conduct. Thus, there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the Commission and the damage relied upon by the appellants in their counterclaim, on the basis of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as regards the order that they pay default interest.

   (see points 96-100, 102-104, 107, 109)

Case C‑531/12 P

Commune de Millau

and

Société d’économie mixte d’équipement de l’Aveyron (SEMEA)

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant contract concerning a local development action — Recovery of part of the sums paid — Assumption of debt — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Limitation period — Liability of the Commission’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 June 2014

1. Judicial proceedings — Representation of the parties — Possibility of remedying a defect in the authority to act by the later production of any document confirming the existence of such authority

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 119(4) and 168(4))

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 169(2))

3. Appeals — 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

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Period of more than 12 years during which the Commission took no action in a recovery procedure — Default interest due during that period greater than the amount of the principal debt — Harm directly attributable to that failure to take action — Liability of the Commission

   (Art. 340 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(3))

1.  Articles 119(4) and 168(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice must be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to remedy a failure to grant an authority to act on the date on which the appeal was lodged by means of an ex post submission of any document confirming the existence of that authority. Consequently, even if the lawyers acting for the appellant did not, at the date on which the present appeal was lodged, have authority to act on behalf of that appellant, the fact remains that, following the appointment of an ad hoc agent, that agent was validly empowered to confirm his intention that that appellant join in the appeal brought by another appellant.

   (see paras 33, 34)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 47, 48)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 55, 56)

4.  In accordance with the general principle of good administration, which is included among the guarantees conferred by the EU legal order in administrative proceedings and which is now enshrined in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it is for the EU institutions to conduct recovery procedures with due diligence and to ensure that each procedural step is taken within a reasonable time following the previous step.

   Consequently, since the Commission took no action for more than 12 years, such a failure being unjustified by either the complexity of the case or other specific circumstances such as would justify that delay, and that inaction has resulted in the amount of default interest claimed exceeding the disputed debt, the default interest accrued during the period of the Commission’s inactivity of more than 12 years is directly attributable to the Commission’s conduct. Thus, there is a direct causal link between the conduct of the Commission and the damage relied upon by the appellants in their counterclaim, on the basis of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as regards the order that they pay default interest.

   (see points 96-100, 102-104, 107, 109)