Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU Case C-584/17 P / Opinion

ADR Center SpA v European Commission.
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Advocate General
Decision date
07/11/2019
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2019:941

Az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartája

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VII: General provisions

Article 51 - Field of application

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-584/17 P / Opinion

    Key facts of the case:

    Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 — Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs — European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums — Article 299 TFEU — Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Effective judicial protection.

    Outcome of the case:

    On the basis of the above considerations, I propose that the Court should:

    1. Dismiss the appeal;
    2. Order ADR Center SpA to bear two thirds of its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission;
    3. Order the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by ADR Center SpA.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    90) In a further line of argument, ADR maintains that the General Court erred in law when it found that the adoption of enforcement decisions in respect of debts arising under a contract does not infringe the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, as such decisions allow the Commission to set itself up as judge in its own case vis-à-vis its co-contractors and to render access to the court having jurisdiction to adjudicate on the contract entirely ineffective.

    ...

    137) As the General Court rightly stated in paragraph 211 of the judgment under appeal, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the right of access to a tribunal under Article 47 of the Charter is guaranteed only if that tribunal has power to consider all the questions of fact and law that are relevant to the case before it. ( 100 )

    ...

    139) As has already been shown, however, it is entirely wrong to assume that contracts concluded by the EU institutions are subject only to the terms of the contract and the provisions of the national law declared applicable by the parties. ( 102 ) Similarly, the General Court’s assumption that the EU institutions are subject to EU fundamental rights and other obligations imposed on them as public authorities by EU law only in the adoption of unilateral acts but not in connection with contracts ( 103 ) is unfounded. There is no question that the EU institutions are bound by these obligations, irrespective of whether they employ unilateral or contractual instruments to exercise their responsibilities. According to Article 51 of the Charter, the provisions of the Charter are addressed broadly to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union, without making any differentiation according to the chosen instrument. Anything else would effectively enable the EU institutions to evade the obligations imposed on them by the fundamental rights by ‘taking refuge in private law’. ( 104 )