16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/42

(Case T-40/15)

(2015/C 089/51)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Plásticos Españoles, SA (ASPLA) (Torrelavega, Spain) and Armando Álvarez, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruixó Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

—primarily, order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 3 4 95 038,66 for the damage caused to the applicants by the General Court’s infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which amount must be added compensatory and default interest applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, to which two basis points have been added, from the date the application was lodged;

—consequently order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings;

—in the alternative, order the European Commission to pay compensation in the amount of EUR 3 4 95 038,66 for the damage caused to the applicants by the General Court’s infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to which amount must be added compensatory and default interest applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, to which two basis points have been added, from the date the application was lodged; and

—consequently order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The plaintiffs complain of the Court’s delay in giving judgment on the actions brought by them in Cases T-76/06 ASPLA v Commission and T-78/06 Armando Álvarez v Commission in which judgment was delivered on 16 December 2011, and, on appeal, on 22 May 2014.

In support of their application, the applicants allege infringement of Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which in their opinion is a reaffirmation of the principle of effective judicial protection, a general principle of EU law.

In their view, the existence of conduct contrary to the above provision and, accordingly, the infringement of the principle of effective judicial protection are demonstrated sufficiently clearly by the judgments of the Court in Cases C-58/12 P Groupe Gascogne v Commission and C-50/12 P Kendrion NV v Commission. It should be noted in that regard that both companies were subject to the same decision imposing penalties as Kendrion and Groupe Gascogne. Like both those companies, they brought an action against the decision imposing penalties and, in proceedings before the General Court which are very similar, if not virtually identical, to those in respect of which the Court of Justice gave judgment in the two cases cited above, were faced with a failure on the part of the General Court to observe a reasonable time for adjudication.