Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/10

—

(Case C-25/12 P)

2012/C 65/20

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gino Trevisanato (represented by L. Sulfaro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Forms of order sought

—Annul the order of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 13 December 2011 in Case T-510/11, declaring the admissibility and the jurisdiction of the General Court to rule on the applications in the action for failure to take action, brought by the applicant on 29 September 2011 against the European Commission, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU;

—Consequently, rule on the merits of the action with costs awarded to the successful party, or, in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant makes three pleas in law in support of his appeal.

The applicant maintains that the order is vitiated by factual error through misinterpretation of the applicant’s claim. He had not asked the Court to find an unlawful refusal by the Commission to take a position, by means of a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 258 TFEU, on the inadequate transposition into the Italian legal order of Directive 98/59/EC (1) on collective redundancies, as the order presupposes. He had, on the contrary, requested the Court to hold that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act by not notifying to the applicant the legally binding position on the request which, 4 years after the complaint, was raised again with the request of 11 July 2011 with regard to the right or otherwise of employees in Italy to enjoy the protection of Directive 98/59/EC on collective redundancies, that right having been denied by the Italian courts to the applicant, who had been the victim of a redundancy of that type, carried out by IBM in Italy.

The General Court then erred by declaring that it had no jurisdiction, on the basis of the Order of the Court of Justice of 26 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P Pevasa and Inpesca. That case-law was not relevant in that case on account of the different factual background.

Finally, the General Court infringed its Rules of Procedure and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by omitting to notify the action to the opposing party, publish a summary in the Official Journal and refer the matter to the Advocate General.

*

(1) OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.

* * *