Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
The third question
45. Furthermore, under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Court of Justice is also to review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.
46. In accordance with the case-law of the Court, the judicial review mechanisms laid down in Article 263 TFEU apply to the bodies, offices and agencies established by the EU legislature which were given powers to adopt measures that are legally binding on natural or legal persons in specific areas, such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (see, to that effect, judgment in United Kingdom v Council and Parliament, C‑270/12, EU:C:2014:18, paragraph 81).
47. A monitoring committee instituted as part of an operational programme to promote European territorial cooperation is not an institution or a body, office or agency of the European Union.
48. In an action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the European Union Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of a measure adopted by a national authority (see, to that effect, judgments in Oleificio Borelli v Commission, C‑97/91, EU:C:1992:491, paragraph 9, and Sweden v Commission, C‑64/05 P, EU:C:2007:802, paragraph 91).
49. In the present case, under Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006, a monitoring committee is to be set up for each operational programme by the ‘Member State’ and each monitoring committee is to draw up its rules of procedure within the institutional, legal and financial framework of the Member State concerned.
50. Since Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006 provide for the possibility of establishing operational programmes to promote European territorial cooperation, the Seirekomitee was instituted jointly by the Republic of Estonia and the Republic of Latvia, as expressly stated in the second subparagraph of Chapter 7.1 of the programme document.
51. Accordingly, the General Court of the European Union does not have jurisdiction, under Article 256 TFEU, to hear an action against a decision of a monitoring committee, such as the Seirekomitee, rejecting an application for aid.
52. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 263 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of an operational programme under Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006 and intended to promote European territorial cooperation, an action against a decision of a monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid does not fall within the jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union.
The second question
53. By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme under Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006 to promote European territorial cooperation between two Member States, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union.
54. As is apparent from the answer given to the third question, the Seirekomitee is not an institution or a body, office or agency of the European Union.
55. In consequence, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to review the validity of the provisions of a programme manual such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
56. Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme under Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006 and intended to promote European territorial cooperation between two Member States, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not constitute an act of an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union and, in consequence, the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to review the validity of the provisions of such a programme manual.
The first question
57. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation No 1083/2006, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a provision of a programme manual adopted by a monitoring committee in the context of an operational programme established by two Member States to promote European territorial cooperation where that provision provides that a decision of that monitoring committee rejecting an application for aid cannot be subject to appeal.
58. In the present case, the Estonia-Latvia operational programme was prepared jointly by the Estonian and Latvian authorities on the basis, in particular, of Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006, and it was subsequently adopted by the Commission.
59. The ninth subparagraph of Chapter 7.1 of the programme document states that more detailed provisions on implementation of the operational programme are to be included in the programme manual. On the basis of that provision, the Seirekomitee adopted the programme manual, in which the contested provision appears, namely the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Chapter 6.6 thereof.
60. The fact that the Seirekomitee is not an institution, body, office or agency of the European Union, as follows from the answer to the third question asked by the referring court, does not prevent Article 47 of the Charter from applying if the adoption by that committee of the programme manual is an act falling within the scope of EU law.
61. In consequence, it is necessary to ascertain whether the programme manual implements EU law, within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
62. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the concept of ‘implementing Union law’, as referred to in that provision of the Charter, requires a certain degree of connection above and beyond the matters covered being closely related or one of those matters having an indirect impact on the other (see, inter alia, judgment in Kremzow, C‑299/95, EU:C:1997:254, paragraph 16).
63. In the present case, it is sufficient to note that EU law required the two Member States involved in the Estonia-Latvia operational programme to implement that programme.
64. In particular, firstly, those Member States were required to institute a monitoring committee, pursuant to Article 63(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1083/2006. Secondly, all the measures intended to apply that operational programme, which include the programme manual, had to comply with the provisions of Regulations Nos 1083/2006 and 1080/2006.
65. Accordingly, it must be held that the adoption of the programme manual by the monitoring committee implements EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter.
66. Consequently, when it adopted that manual, the Monitoring Commission was required to comply with the provisions of the Charter.
67. The first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that article.
68. To ensure that the right to an effective remedy within the EU is upheld, the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU requires the Member States to provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law.
69. In a case such as that in the main proceedings, the rejection of an application for aid by the Seirekomitee means that the applicant is definitively excluded from the procedure allocating the aid cofinanced by the EU, without any decision being communicated to it subsequently.
70. Furthermore, it is apparent from the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Chapter 6.6 of the programme manual that the decisions of the Seirekomitee are not appealable. It is therefore not possible for an applicant whose application for aid has been rejected to contest that rejection decision.
