In Case T-266/12

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

6 August 2012(1)

(Actions for annulment – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Lack of direct concern – Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case T-266/12,

Tomas Markevičius, residing in Vilnius (Lithuania), represented by R.Strončikas, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Commission,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24April 2012, refusing to initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of L. Truchot, President (Rapporteur), M. E. Martins Ribeiro and A.Popescu, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Procedure and form of order sought by the applicant

1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 8 June 2012, the applicant brought the present action.

2The applicant claims that the Court should:

–annul the Commission’s decision of 24 April 2012 refusing to initiate proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against the Kingdom of the Netherlands for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations;

–assume the role of the competent domestic authorities and order some child protection measures.

Law

3Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible the Court may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action by reasoned order.

4In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

5This application, lodged under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to act upon the applicant’s request for an action for failure to fulfil an obligation to be brought against the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

6According to settled case law, individuals do not have standing to challenge a refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations (order in Case C‑29/92 Asia Motor France v Commission [1992] ECR I‑3935, paragraph 21; order in Case T‑126/95 Dumez v Commission [1995] ECR II‑2863, paragraph 33; and Case T‑277/94 AITEC v Commission [1996] ECR II‑351, paragraph 55).

7When, as in the present case, a decision of the Commission amounts to a rejection, it must be appraised in the light of the nature of the request to which it constitutes a reply (Case 42/71 Nordgetreide v Commission [1972] ECR 105, paragraph 5; order in Dumez v Commission, paragraph 34; and Case T‑330/94 Salt Union v Commission [1996] ECR II‑1475, paragraph 32).

8It must be noted that the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU provides that any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs of that provision, institute annulment proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures.

9In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 258 TFEU, the only measures which the Commission may adopt are measures addressed to Member States (orders in Joined Cases T‑479/93 and T‑559/93 Bernardi v Commission [1994] ECR II‑1115, paragraph 31, and Case T‑117/96 Intertronic v Commission [1997] ECR II‑141, paragraph 32). In addition, it is clear from the scheme of Article 258 TFEU that neither a reasoned opinion, which is merely a preliminary stage after which, if appropriate, an action may be lodged before the Court of Justice for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations, nor referral to the Court of Justice by the actual lodging of such an action can constitute acts of direct concern to natural or legal persons.

10Lastly, as regards the applicant’s request that some child protection measures be ordered, it must be noted that the General Court does not have jurisdiction on the basis of Article 263 TFEU to assume the role of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies or the national authorities in charge of implementing European Union law (order in Case T‑73/99 Meyer v Council and Commission [1999] ECR II‑1739, paragraph 12).

11It follows that the application made by the applicant seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 April 2012 refusing to initiate infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU against the Kingdom of the Netherlands must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible and there is no need for it to be served on the Commission.

Costs

12As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.The action is dismissed.

2.The applicant shall pay its own costs.

Luxembourg, 6 August 2012.

1 Language of the case: English.