{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-507-24-p", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-507-24-p)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "fingerprint": "ewai:eu:af38ec", "proof": "sha256:59107935f6b0cd0934763c8b4c58d184c5fe88b809e3c5b7eb39f36addbdd315", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "eu:c-507-24-p", "jurisdiction": "eu", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19" ], "kind": "front_matter" }, { "title": "Judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_20", "para_21" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Legal context", "paragraphs": [ "para_22" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "European Union law", "paragraphs": [ "para_23" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Regulation EU 2017/1939", "paragraphs": [ "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1696", "paragraphs": [ "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Greek law", "paragraphs": [ "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57" ], "kind": "legal_framework" }, { "title": "Background to the dispute", "paragraphs": [ "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "The action before the General Court and the order under appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84" ], "kind": "facts" }, { "title": "Admissibility of the appeal", "paragraphs": [ "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135" ], "kind": "assessment" }, { "title": "Costs", "paragraphs": [ "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139" ], "kind": "costs" }, { "title": "On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144" ], "kind": "operative" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "Provisional text", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "10 September 2026 ( * )", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "( Appeal – Law governing the institutions – Enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 – Article 16 – Appointment of European Prosecutors – Appointment of one of the candidates nominated by the Hellenic Republic – Rules applicable to the appointment of European Prosecutors – Action for annulment – Plea alleging that the proposal for appointment from the Member State concerned is unlawful – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court )", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "In Case C‑507/24 P,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 18 July 2024,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "YS, represented by A. Pappas, D.-A. Pappa and S. Pappas, dikigoroi,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "the other parties to the proceedings being:", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Council of the European Union, represented by M. Balta, E. Rebasti and A. Ştefănuc, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "European Commission, represented by T. Adamopoulos, J. Baquero Cruz and F. Blanc, acting as Agents,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "defendants at first instance,", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Chamber, M. Condinanzi, N. Jääskinen, R. Frendo and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "having regard to the written procedure,", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 March 2026,", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "gives the following", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "1         By his appeal, YS seeks to have set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 May 2024, YS v Council and Commission (T‑411/23, ‘the order under appeal’, EU:T:2024:310), by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible his action seeking, first, the annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2023/1335 of 27 June 2023 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2023 L 166, p. 116; ‘the decision at issue’) and, second, a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully refrained from bringing infringement proceedings against the Hellenic Republic.", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "Legal context", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "European Union law", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "Regulation EU 2017/1939", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "2         Article 14 of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2017 L 283, p. 1), entitled ‘Appointment and dismissal of the European Chief Prosecutor’, provides, in paragraph 3:", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "‘The selection shall be based on an open call for candidates, to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union , following which a selection panel [(“the selection panel”)] shall draw up a shortlist of qualified candidates to be submitted to the European Parliament and to the Council [of the European Union]. The selection panel shall comprise [12] persons chosen from among former members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors, former national members of Eurojust, members of national supreme courts, high level prosecutors and lawyers of recognised competence. One of the persons chosen shall be proposed by the European Parliament. The Council shall establish the selection panel’s operating rules and shall adopt a decision appointing its members on a proposal from the Commission.’", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "3         Article 16 of that regulation, entitled ‘Appointment and dismissal of the European Prosecutors’, provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "‘1.      Each Member State shall nominate three candidates for the position of European Prosecutor from among candidates:", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(a)      who are active members of the public prosecution service or judiciary of the relevant Member State;", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "(b)      whose independence is beyond doubt; and", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "(c)      who possess the qualifications required for appointment to high prosecutorial or judicial office in their respective Member States, and who have relevant practical experience of national legal systems, of financial investigations and of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "2.      After having received the reasoned opinion of the [selection panel], the Council shall select and appoint one of the candidates to be the European Prosecutor of the Member State in question. If the selection panel finds that a candidate does not fulfil the conditions required for the performance of the duties of a European Prosecutor, its opinion shall be binding on the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "…’", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1696", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "4         On 13 July 2018, the Council adopted Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1696 on the operating rules of the selection panel provided for in Article 14(3) of Regulation 2017/1939 (OJ 2018 L 282, p. 8).", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "5         The annex to that implementing decision, entitled ‘Operating rules of the selection panel’ (‘the operating rules of the selection panel’), provides, in the first paragraph of Rule VI(2):", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "‘Upon receipt of the nominations, the selection panel shall review them with regard to the requirements set out in Article 16(1) of Regulation [2017/1939]. The selection panel shall hear the candidates nominated. The hearing shall take place in person.’", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "6         Rule VII(2) of the operating rules of the selection panel provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "‘Based on its findings during the review and hearing, the selection panel shall formulate an opinion on the candidates’ qualifications to perform the duties of European Prosecutors and shall expressly state whether or not a candidate fulfils the conditions in Article 16(1) of Regulation [2017/1939]. The selection panel shall provide reasons for its opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "In the event that nominated candidates do not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 16(1) of Regulation [2017/1939], the selection panel shall, through its secretariat, request that the Member State concerned nominate a corresponding number of new candidates.", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "The selection panel shall rank the candidates according to their qualifications and experience. The ranking shall indicate the selection panel’s order of preference and shall not be binding on the Council.’", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "The decision at issue", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "7         Recitals 3, 6, 7, 11 and 13 of the decision at issue state:", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "‘(3)      The mandates of eight European Prosecutors appointed for a non-renewable period of three years by Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1117 [of 27 July 2020 appointing the European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (OJ 2020 L 244, p.18)] expire on 28 July 2023. To ensure the continuity of functioning of the EPPO College, which consists of the European Chief Prosecutor and one European Prosecutor per participating Member State, it is necessary for the Council to appoint eight European Prosecutors for those positions becoming vacant from 29 July 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "(6)      [The Hellenic Republic], [the Italian Republic], [the Republic of] Cyprus, [the Republic of] Lithuania and [the Republic of] Austria have nominated the candidates for the positions becoming vacant from 29 July 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "(7)      The selection panel drew up the reasoned opinions and the ranking for each of the candidates nominated by those Member States who fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 16(1) of Regulation [2017/1939] and submitted them to the Council, which received them on 2 May 2023.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "(11)      The Council assessed the respective merits of the candidates taking into account the reasoned opinions submitted by the selection panel.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "…", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "(13)      On the basis of an assessment of the respective merits of the candidates, the Council followed the non-binding order of preference indicated by the selection panel for the candidates nominated by [the Hellenic Republic], [the Republic of] Cyprus, [the Republic of] Lithuania and [the Republic of] Austria.’", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "8         Article 1 of the contested decision lists the five candidates appointed European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office for a non-renewable period of six years from 29 July 2023. The candidate nominated by the Hellenic Republic is included in that list.", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "Greek law", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "9         Nomos 4786/2021 Efarmogi diataxeon tou Kanonismou (EE) 2017/1939 tou Symvouliou tis 12is Oktovriou 2017 schetika me tin efarmogi enischymenis synergasias gia ti systasi tis Evropaikis Eisangelias, rythmiseis gia ti leitourgia ton dikastirion kai alles diataxeis tou Ypourgeiou Dikaiosynis (Law 4786/2021 on the implementation of the provisions of Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the organisation of the functioning of the courts and other provisions of the Ministry of Justice) (FEK A’ 43), in the version applicable to the facts of the case (‘Law 4786/2021’), which implements Regulation 2017/1939, provides, in Article 4(1):", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "‘1.      Each candidate for the position of European Prosecutor must, at the time of his or her application and at the time of his or her appointment:", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "(a)      have at least the grade of public prosecutor at a judicial court and up to the grade of public prosecutor at a court of appeal. A public prosecutor at a judicial court must have completed at least five (5) years in that grade;", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "(b)      be eligible for appointment to the national public prosecutor’s office for at least nine (9) years until retirement …’", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "Background to the dispute", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "10       For the purposes of the appeal proceedings, the background to the dispute, set out in paragraphs 2 to 12 of the order under appeal, may be summarised as follows.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "11       On 27 September 2022, the Greek authorities published a call for applications to appoint three candidates for the position of European Prosecutor on behalf of the Hellenic Republic. On 17 October 2022, the appellant, who serves as a judge of a court of appeal, submitted his application in that procedure.", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "12       By decision of 20 December 2022, the Anotato Dikastiko Symvoulio Politikis kai Poinikis Dikaiosynis (Supreme Council of Civil and Criminal Justice, Greece) (‘the SCCCJ’) rejected the appellant’s application as inadmissible on the ground that, since he was not a public prosecutor, he did not fulfil the condition laid down by Law 4786/2021.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "13       By the same decision, the SCCCJ nominated, on behalf of the Hellenic Republic, three candidates for the position of European Prosecutor.", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "14       On 22 March 2023, the appellant brought an action for annulment of that decision before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State, Greece).", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "15       In the light of the applications submitted by the national authorities, the selection panel drew up the reasoned opinions and the ranking for each of the candidates nominated by those authorities and forwarded them to the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "16       By the decision at issue, the Council appointed five European Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office from among the candidates submitted by the Member States concerned, including, in particular, the public prosecutor nominated by the Hellenic Republic.", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "The action before the General Court and the order under appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "17       By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 16 July 2023, the appellant brought an action seeking, in essence, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, annulment of the decision at issue and, second, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to initiate infringement proceedings against the Hellenic Republic.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "18       By separate documents lodged at the Court Registry on 27 and 29 September 2023 respectively, the Council and the Commission raised objections of inadmissibility in respect of that action.", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "19       By the order under appeal, the General Court dismissed that action as inadmissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "20       In paragraphs 25 to 32 of the order under appeal, the General Court upheld the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in respect of the appellant’s claims seeking a declaration that the Commission had failed to act with regard to the Hellenic Republic’s alleged failures to fulfil obligations. More specifically, it recalled, in paragraph 27 of that order, that, according to settled case-law, natural and legal persons are not entitled to bring an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that, by not initiating proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations, the Commission has failed to act in breach of the FEU Treaty.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "21       In paragraphs 33 to 41 of the order under appeal, the General Court upheld the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council, holding, primarily, that it was not for the Court, according to the case-law arising from the judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest (C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023, paragraphs 45 and 46), to rule on the appellant’s complaint alleging that the SCCCJ’s decision rejecting his application was unlawful, review of which is a matter for the national courts, and that the appellant had not submitted any other complaint seeking to establish the unlawfulness of the decision at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "22       In the alternative, the General Court held, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 42 to 46 of the order under appeal, that the appellant had also failed to establish the existence of an actual or certain interest in the annulment of the decision at issue. It thus held that the claims made under Article 263 TFEU should also be rejected on those grounds.", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "23       The appellant claims that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "–        set aside the order under appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "–        annul the decision at issue, either in its entirety or, at the very least, in so far as it appoints the Greek candidate to the position of European Prosecutor, and", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "–        order the Council and the Commission to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the appellant in the appeal proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "24       The Council contends that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "–        dismiss the appeal and", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "–        order the appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "25       The Commission contends that the Court should:", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "–        dismiss the appeal as manifestly unfounded and", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "–        order the appellant to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "The appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "Admissibility of the appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "26       The Council submits that the appeal does not satisfy the conditions of admissibility on the ground that the appellant does not put forward any specific arguments seeking to identify the errors of law allegedly vitiating the order under appeal, but merely repeats or reformulates the arguments already submitted at first instance.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "27       In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it follows from the second subparagraph of Article 256(1) TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 168(1)(d) and Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of that appeal, failing which the appeal or ground of appeal concerned will be inadmissible (judgment of 16 April 2026, Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v EPPO , C‑328/24 P, EU:C:2026:302, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "28       An appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order which the appellant seeks to have set aside, merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the General Court, including those based on facts expressly rejected by the General Court, does not satisfy the requirement to state reasons under those provisions. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the General Court, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake (judgment of 16 April 2026, Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v EPPO , C‑328/24 P, EU:C:2026:302, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "29       However, where an appellant challenges the interpretation or application of EU law by the General Court, the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal. Indeed, if an appellant could not thus base his or her appeal on pleas in law and arguments already relied on before the General Court, an appeal would be deprived of part of its purpose (judgment of 16 April 2026, Mincu Pătrașcu Brâncuși v EPPO , C‑328/24 P, EU:C:2026:302, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "30       In the present case, the appellant has, in his appeal, raised two grounds which seek to call into question the grounds set out by the General Court concerning its own jurisdiction and the appellant’s interest in bringing proceedings, set out in paragraphs 33 to 41 and paragraphs 42 to 46 of the order under appeal, respectively; the appellant alleges, in a clear, specific and reasoned manner, that those grounds are vitiated by errors of law.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "31       The appeal is therefore admissible.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "Substance", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "32       In support of his claims, the appellant puts forward two grounds of appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "The first ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "–        Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "33       By his first ground of appeal, the appellant complains, in essence, that the General Court, in paragraphs 37 to 41 of the order under appeal, erred in law in finding that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the lawfulness of the SCCCJ’s decision in the context of an action for annulment of the decision at issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "34       The appellant recalls that, before the General Court, he argued that the contested decision was unlawful on the ground that it was based on the SCCCJ’s decision, which had to be classified as a preparatory act adopted in breach of Article 16 of Regulation 2017/1939. According to the appellant, the SCCCJ’s decision is unlawful because Law 4786/2021, on which it is based, excludes, contrary to Article 16(1) of that regulation, members of the judiciary from the procedure for nominating candidates for the position of European Prosecutor.", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "35       In that regard, the appellant submits that the General Court has exclusive jurisdiction to review the legality of the contested decision. The appointment of European Prosecutors is part of a composite administrative procedure comprising, inter alia, a preparatory proposal from the Member State concerned and ends with the adoption by the Council of the final appointment decision. In that context, that institution alone has final decision-making power and is not bound by the preparatory acts or proposals of the national authorities. It is therefore for the General Court, by virtue of its exclusive jurisdiction, to review the legality of the decision at issue, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "36       The appellant is of the view, in particular, that the General Court did not correctly apply the guidance provided in the judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest (C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023). In that regard, he submits that the Council has the power to reject a manifestly unlawful proposal by the national authorities nominating candidates for appointment to the EPPO, in particular where that proposal is based on unlawful selection criteria. Thus, the Council has sufficient discretion to reject such a proposal, which obliges the Member State concerned to submit other applications. Therefore, such a national proposal does not bind the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "37       That conclusion is supported by the extensive powers vested in the selection panel, which has sufficient discretion to assess the proposal of the national authorities. That panel must, first, ensure that the Council chooses between three candidates who all fulfil the conditions to serve as European Prosecutor. If those three candidates do not fulfil those conditions, that panel is to instruct the Member State concerned to designate a corresponding number of new candidates. Second, that panel must compare, ‘solely on an advisory basis’, the merits of those three candidates. The appellant emphasises that the ranking drawn up by the selection panel refers to an order of preference and is not binding on the Council. It is therefore clear that that panel and the Council are not bound by the proposals from the Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "38       Accordingly, the Council’s competence to verify the eligibility of candidates proposed by the Member States implies that that institution is also competent to review the legality of the national procedure for the selection of candidates for appointment to the EPPO.", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "39       The Council and the Commission contend that the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "–        Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "40       Article 263 TFEU confers upon the Court of Justice of the European Union exclusive jurisdiction to review the legality of acts adopted by the EU institutions, one of which is the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "41       Any involvement of the national authorities in the course of the procedure leading to the adoption of such acts cannot affect their classification as EU acts where the acts of the national authorities constitute a stage of a procedure in which an EU institution exercises, alone, the final decision-making power without being bound by the preparatory acts or the proposals of the national authorities (judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest , C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "42       In such a situation, where EU law does not aim to establish a division between two powers – one national and the other of the European Union – with separate purposes, but, on the contrary, lays down that an EU institution is to have an exclusive decision-making power, it falls to the EU Courts, by virtue of their exclusive jurisdiction to review the legality of EU acts on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, to rule on the legality of the final decision adopted by the EU institution at issue and to examine, in order to ensure effective judicial protection of the persons concerned, any defects vitiating the preparatory acts or the proposals of the national authorities that would be such as to affect the validity of that final decision (judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest , C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "43       That being said, as the General Court correctly recalled in paragraph 37 of the order under appeal, an act of a national authority that is part of a decision-making process of the European Union does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the EU Courts where it is apparent from the division of powers in the field in question between the national authorities and the EU institutions that the act adopted by the national authority concerned is a necessary stage of a procedure for adopting an EU act in which the EU institutions have only a limited or no discretion, so that the national act is binding on the EU institution concerned. It then falls to the national courts to rule on any irregularities that may vitiate such a national act – making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling where appropriate – on the same terms as those on which they review any definitive act adopted by the same national authority which is capable of adversely affecting third parties and moreover, in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection, to regard an action brought for that purpose as admissible even if the national rules of procedure do not so provide (judgment of 19 December 2018, Berlusconi and Fininvest , C‑219/17, EU:C:2018:1023, paragraphs 45 and 46 and the case-law cited).", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "44       In the present case, it should be borne in mind that the decision at issue, annulment of which the appellant sought before the General Court on the ground that it was based on an unlawful preparatory act adopted by the national authorities, is based, inter alia, on Article 16 of Regulation 2017/1939.", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "45       Under Article 16(1) of that regulation, each participating Member State is to nominate three candidates for the position of European Prosecutor among candidates who fulfil the conditions laid down in points (a) to (c) of that provision.", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "46       Compliance with those conditions must be verified, in accordance with Article 16(2) of that regulation, by the selection panel, which is to issue a reasoned opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "47       After receiving the three applications submitted by the Member State concerned, as provided for in the first paragraph of Rule VI(2) of the operating rules of the selection panel, the selection panel is to examine them in the light of the requirements laid down in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2017/1939 and hear the nominated candidates.", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "48       The first paragraph of Rule VII(2) of those rules provides that, based on its findings during the review and hearing, the selection panel is to formulate an opinion on the candidates’ qualifications to perform the duties of European Prosecutors and is to state expressly whether or not a candidate fulfils the conditions in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2017/1939.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "49       Under Article 16(2) of that regulation, if the selection panel finds that a candidate does not fulfil the conditions required for the performance of the duties of European Prosecutor, its opinion is binding on the Council. In that situation, in accordance with the second paragraph of Rule VII(2) of the operating rules of the selection panel, the selection panel is to instruct the Member State concerned to nominate a corresponding number of new candidates.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "50       As provided for in the third paragraph of Rule VII(2) of those rules, the selection panel is to draw up a ranking of candidates eligible to perform the duties of European Prosecutor in the light of their qualifications and experience, which refers to an order of preference; that ranking is not binding on the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "51       After receiving that reasoned opinion, in accordance with Article 16(2) of Regulation 2017/1939, the Council is to select and appoint one of the candidates listed in that reasoned opinion to the office of European Prosecutor of the Member State concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "52       It is apparent from those provisions that the adoption of the Council decision appointing the European Prosecutors takes place at the end of a composite administrative procedure, based on a division of competences between the European Union and the Member States.", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "53       The first stage of that procedure consists of the nomination, by the Member States concerned, of three candidates for the position of European Prosecutor. To that end, those Member States have an exclusive power, which is binding on the Council, to propose candidates, to the effect that neither that institution, nor, indeed, the selection panel have any power or discretion to select and, as the case may be, appoint candidates other than those proposed by those Member States. Similarly, they do not have the power to adopt a position on the reasons which led the Member State concerned to reject certain applications in the context of that first stage, which takes place exclusively at national level.", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "54       It follows that, during that first stage, neither the selection panel nor the Council is entitled to substitute their own assessment for that of the national authorities.", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "55       Therefore, as the General Court correctly observed, in essence, in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the order under appeal, the discretion enjoyed by the Council under Article 16(2) of Regulation 2017/1939 is limited solely to verifying the applications proposed by the Member State concerned in the light of the conditions required to perform the duties of European Prosecutor. Consequently, the act nominating candidates for appointment to the EPPO, taken by the competent national authority, is binding on the Council and determines the terms of its decision, in the sense that that decision cannot relate to applications other than those submitted to it in that act.", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "56       That conclusion is not called into question by the argument put forward by the appellant that, in the context of the second stage of the procedure for the appointment of European Prosecutors, the selection panel has a specific power to examine the applications submitted by a Member State, which may lead to the rejection of those applications and subsequently entails the nomination, by that Member State, of a corresponding number of new candidates.", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "57       First, the assessments made by the selection panel may concern only the candidates proposed by the Member States and cannot in any event relate to other candidates, or indeed to the reasons why such other candidates were not proposed by those Member States. Second, even where one or more candidates nominated by a Member State are rejected by the selection panel on the ground that they do not fulfil the criteria laid down in Article 16(1) of Regulation 2017/1939, it falls exclusively to the Member State concerned to propose new candidates. It follows that, in all cases, the selection panel remains bound by the proposal decision of the national authorities, in that the reasoned opinion which that panel adopts cannot relate to applications other than those submitted to it by the Member State concerned.", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "58       It is also true that, in the context of that second stage of the procedure for appointing European Prosecutors, the selection panel and then the Council have a certain discretion in assessing and comparing the merits of candidates for the position of European Prosecutor of a Member State, in so far as, first, the selection panel establishes, in order of preference, a ranking of the candidates according to their qualifications and experience and, second, that order is not binding on the Council.", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "59       However, as the Court has already observed in paragraph 53 of the present judgment, that discretion relates only to the three candidates proposed by the Member State concerned. By contrast, the selection panel and the Council have no discretion to intervene in the first stage of the procedure for the appointment of the European Prosecutors.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "60       Thus, it is appropriate to reject the appellant’s argument that the finding that the Council is competent to verify the eligibility of the candidates proposed by the Member States means that it is also competent to review the legality of the national procedure for nominating candidates for the positions of European Prosecutors.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "61       In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the General Court correctly applied the case-law referred to in paragraphs 41 to 43 of the present judgment and that it did not err in law in ruling, in paragraph 40 of the order under appeal, that it did not fall to it to examine the complaint alleging that the SCCCJ’s decision rejecting the appellant’s application was unlawful, review of which is a matter for the national courts under the conditions referred to in paragraph 43 of the present judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "62       It follows from the foregoing that the first ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "The second ground of appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "–        Arguments of the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "63       By his second ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the assessment made by the General Court, in paragraphs 42 to 46 of the order under appeal, concerning his lack of interest in bringing proceedings. In so far as he brought an action for annulment before the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Council of State) against the SCCCJ’s decision rejecting his application, he is of the view that he has an existing and current interest in bringing proceedings until that court rules on his action. Furthermore, the annulment which, according to the appellant, must be granted on the basis of the first ground of appeal would necessarily lead to the annulment of paragraphs 42 to 46 of the order under appeal, since it would mean that the General Court has jurisdiction to review the decision at issue. Annulment of that decision would require the Greek authorities to restart the national procedure for the nomination of candidates and to carry out a fresh examination of his application, since the appellant’s standing to bring proceedings and his interest in bringing proceedings lie, accordingly, in the possibility of participating in that procedure. Furthermore, the appellant submits that the interpretation adopted by the General Court in paragraphs 42 to 46 of the order under appeal deprives him of his right to effective judicial protection.", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "64       The Council and the Commission contend that the second ground of appeal must be rejected as unfounded.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "–        Findings of the Court", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "65       It must be borne in mind that, according to well established case-law, in an appeal, complaints directed against grounds included in a judgment of the General Court purely for the sake of completeness cannot lead to that judgment being set aside and must therefore be rejected as ineffective (order of 18 December 2025, Maud Tea & Seed v Commission , C‑272/25 P, EU:C:2025:1025, paragraph 38).", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "66       In the present case, paragraph 42 of the order under appeal states that it is in the alternative that the General Court observed, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 42 to 46 of that order, that the appellant had not established that he had a current or certain interest in the annulment of the decision at issue. It must therefore be held that the second ground of appeal concerns grounds included in the order under appeal purely for the sake of completeness.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "67       In those circumstances, since the first ground of appeal, directed against assessments made primarily by the General Court in the order under appeal, has been rejected, the second ground of appeal, in so far as it concerns grounds included in that order purely for the sake of completeness, cannot lead to that order being set aside and must therefore be rejected as ineffective.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "68       In the light of all the foregoing, the appeal must be dismissed in its entirety.", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Costs", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "69       In accordance with Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where an appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "70       Article 138(1) of those rules, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, provides that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "71       Since the Council and the Commission have applied for costs and the appellant has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "1.       Dismisses the appeal;", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "2.       Orders YS to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "[Signatures]", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "*       Language of the case: Greek.", "paragraph_id": "para_144" } ], "operative_part": "On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby:\n\n1.       Dismisses the appeal;\n\n2.       Orders YS to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.\n\n*       Language of the case: Greek.", "word_count": 5565, "cites": [ "C-507/24", "T-411/23", "C-219/17", "C-328/24", "C-272/25" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "e4f10f55a382c99ad6c0ac72fd3de1ce030fc1842f153f722cdd60e4f9f5060d", "source_url": "https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0507", "fetched_at": "2026-09-30T07:33:51.914+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-507-24-p", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-507-24-p", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-507-24-p", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-507-24-p", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "e4f10f55a382c99ad6c0ac72fd3de1ce030fc1842f153f722cdd60e4f9f5060d", "recomputed_sha256": "e4f10f55a382c99ad6c0ac72fd3de1ce030fc1842f153f722cdd60e4f9f5060d", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-10T05:15:47.204Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:59107935f6b0cd0934763c8b4c58d184c5fe88b809e3c5b7eb39f36addbdd315", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "expires": "2026-10-11T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T21:48:48", "content_hash": "sha256:59107935f6b0cd0934763c8b4c58d184c5fe88b809e3c5b7eb39f36addbdd315", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-10T06:15:47.769Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-507-24-p", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-507-24-p" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-507-24-p" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-507-24-p" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }