{"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-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:80f1703ffeb32308f842dd1f1c6e64b53cc4ec03aec7b0453b2f674d546a25aa","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 …","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 Co …","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 [o …","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 e …","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 ( …","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 fu …","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, …","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 Rule …","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 …","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 argument …","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 appella …","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 St …","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 unlawf …","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 …","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 d …","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 Cou …","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 d …","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 nei …","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 …","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 ca …","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, i …","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 e …","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 …","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_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-507-24-p","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"present","cites_count":5,"word_count":5565,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:80f1703ffeb32308f842dd1f1c6e64b53cc4ec03aec7b0453b2f674d546a25aa","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:80f1703ffeb32308f842dd1f1c6e64b53cc4ec03aec7b0453b2f674d546a25aa","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T00:27:47.440Z","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":"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","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-507-24-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-35b6543133d9be07ae35aea1b49119d3","response_hash":"sha256:80f1703ffeb32308f842dd1f1c6e64b53cc4ec03aec7b0453b2f674d546a25aa"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-02T23:27:48.016Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-507-24-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":11431}}