C-1/64

decision is addressed may only claim to A decision of general economic scope

be individually concerned if that deci­ and effect within the Common Market sion affects them by reason of certain cannot be of individual concern to an

attributes which are peculiar to them or undertaking, even if the latter occupies, by reason of circumstances in which a special position as regards the relevant

they are differentiated from all other product in the market of one of the

persons, and by virtue of these factors Member States. distinguishes them individually just as

In Case 1/64

JUDGMENT OF 2.7.1964 — CASE 1/64

acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European

Executives, 2 place de Metz, defendant,

Application for the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of 28 November 1963 authorizing the levying of countervailing charges on the importation into the French Republic of glucose (dextrose) originating from certain Member States (Official Journal, 13 December 1963),

THE COURT

composed of: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi

French Republic, the Commission of the leading European manufacturers of glu­

European Economic Community au­ cose, maintains that this Decision is thorized that Member State, by a Deci­ illegal because the conditions for the

sion of 28 November 1963 (Official applicability of the Council's Decision Journal, 13 December 1963, pp. 2914 to of 4 April 1962 do not exist so far as 2917/63), to levy countervailing charges Belgian industry is concerned. on the importation of glucose (dextrose) The applicant also claims, alternatively,

originating in other Member States, that the contested Decision introduces where those States did not themselves discrimination by excluding the Italian impose such charges on export. Republic from the scheme established

This Decision of the Commission, which by it. has been contested by the applicant in Lastly, the applicant reserves the right

an application lodged on 13 January to specify at a later stage in the pro­

published in the Official Journal of in which this action was brought are, it the European Communities of 13 claims, identical in every way to those December 1963 (p. 2914/63), at least which gave rise to that judgment, the

in so far as it authorizes the imposition contested Decision being neither of

of a countervailing charge of 7.15 FF direct nor of individual concern to the

per 100 kg on the importation of applicant, irrespective of whether it can glucose(dextrose) originating in the be considered as having been made 'in Kingdom of Belgium; the form of a decision addressed to

place on record that the applicant another person.

reserves its position as regards com­ Endorsing the opinion expressed by pensation for any damage it may be Advocate-General Roemer in Case 25/­ caused by the contested Decision; 62, the defendant states that a decision order the defendant to bear the costs; which grants an authorization to, or accept French as the language of the imposes an obligation on, a Member

sible; the Community executive and refusing

dismiss the request that the trench to grant an authorization for which a

Republic be ordered to appear; Member State has applied, no direct order the applicant to bear the costs. interest is involved, since there again

The company claims in its individuals be directly con­ applicant can only observations in reply to this request cerned by the national legislative pro­

that the Court should: visions the amendment of which the

‘Place on record that the applicant decision has prevented.

ruling on admissibility without going duce or export glucose to France. into the substance of the case. The de­ In its reply of 8 April 1964, the applicant fendant claims that this request is justi­ claims that all the conditions as to

fied because the action is so obviously admissibility set out in the last sentence

JUDGMENT OF 2.7.1964 — CASE 1/64

of the second paragraph of Article 173 be of individual concern, the applicant

of the Treaty are met in this instance. remarks that, unlike the applicant in The applicant does not agree with the Case 25/62, its position as far as the argument expounded by the Advocate- effects of the contested Decision are

General in Case 25/62 as regards 'direct concerned is sufficiently special, to dis­

never have introduced, as it has done, a orders from France given to and exe­

countervailing charge on imports of cuted by it during that year reveals that glucose (dextrose) from Belgium, there the quantities concerned are identical. is a casual relationship between the Consequently the applicant, being the contested Decision and its harmful only Belgian producer with dextrose for the applicant which is in quantity for ex­ consequences available sufficient

both inevitable and direct. It is in any port, is in a position fundamentally case hard to imagine that an authoriza­ different from that of the Plaumann tion to impose a countervailing charge firm, which was merely one of thirty-five on imports should be sought but not German importers of Clementines, and

used, particularly in view of the fact is concerned actually and individually that the purpose of the decision is, to by any decision authorizing the imposi­ authorize, as here, a countervailing tion of a countervailing charge on

charge intended to compensate for dextrose imports from Belgium. certain imbalances created by price

differences in basic agricultural raw IV — Procedure materials. According to the applicant

The contested Decision is addressed to Member States. The second para­

graph of Article 173 provides that any natural or legal person may contest a decision which is not addressed to him on condition that it is of direct and individual concern to him.

GLUCOSERIES REUNIES v COMMISSION

The defendant maintains that the contested Decision is of neither direct nor individual concern to the applicant within the meaning of this provision.

Consequently, the Court must first decide whether this second condition of admissibility is fulfilled, since it would be superfluous to determine whether the Decision is of direct concern to the applicant if it is not of individual

concern to him.

equally affected by the Decision in question.

Bearing in mind the aim of the Decision, which is to protect a sector of the French economy against competition from imports originating in other Member States, and the machinery set up to this end, the contested Decision is intended to affect imports of glucose into France from the Com­ whole

munity with the exception of Italy because that country does not export any glucose to France.

In view of the general economic scope of the contested Decision, it is not of individual concern to the applicant even if the latter does occupy the position which it claims on the Belgian market in respect of glucose exports to France.

For these reasons, this application for annulment is inadmissible and there is no need to consider whether the contested Decision, seeing that it presup­

poses for its implementation some subsequent act by a Member State, can be of concern to the applicant.

Having regard to the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty estab­

lishing the European Economic Com unity;

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court ofJustice annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69 (2);

THE COURT

hereby: