C-66/76
ECLI:EU:C:1977:31
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61976CJ0066
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 17 FEBRUARY 1977 1
Confederation Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT) v Council of the European Communities
Case 66/76
Costs — Order that the parties bear their own costs — Exceptional circumstances Rules of Procedure, Article 69 (3)
When a trade union institutes proceed laid down by Article 18 of the ECSC ings with the sole aim of ensuring that Treaty, this constitutes an exceptional the Consultative Committee is circumstance justifying an order that the representative, a requirement expressly parties should bear their own costs.
In Case 66/76,
CONFÉDÉRATION FRANÇAISE DÉMOCRATIQUE DU TRAVAIL, (CFDT), having its head office in Paris, represented by its Secretary-General, Edmond Maire, assisted by Pierre Edouard Weil, Advocate at the Cour de Paris, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Vogel, Advocate at the Court, 30 rue Goethe,
applicant, v
Council of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, Antonio Sacchettini, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Van den Houten, Director of the Legal Department of the European Investment Bank, 2 place de Metz,
defendant,
Application for the annulment of the decision of the Council of 1 June 1976 and of the refusal of the Secretary-General of the Council contained in his letter of 1 July 1976 to submit to the Council the candidates put forward by the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail for membership of the Consultative Committee referred to in Article 18 of the ECSC Treaty,
I — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 2. 1977 — CASE 66/76
THE COURT
composed of: H. Kutscher, President, P. Pescatore, President of Chambers, M. Sørensen, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges,
Advocate-General: G. Reischl
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
The facts and the arguments developed 2. Since the term of office of the
by the parties in the course of the written members of the Consultative Committee procedure may be summarized as (hereinafter referred to as 'the follows: Committee') appointed by decision of the Council of 25 June 1974 was due to expire on 24 June 1976 the Council I — Facts and procedure adopted on 1 June 1976 a decision 'designating representative organizations 1. Under Article 18 of the Treaty required to draw up lists of candidates' establishing the ECSC: for the Committee (OJ L 149, 1976, p. 12). The organizations 'of producers and 'A Consultative Committee shall be workers' (Cf. Article 1 of the decision) so attached to the High Authority. It shall designated were listed for each Member consist of not less that sixty and no more State in the annex to the decision. The
than eighty four members and shall Confederation Française Démocratique comprise equal numbers of producers, of du Travail (the French Democratic workers and of consumers and dealers. Confederation of Labour, hereinafter referred to as 'the Confederation') was The members of the Consultative not included among the workers' Committee shall be appointed by the organizations. The Council also decided Council. on this occasion that it would subsequently determine the seats allotted In the case of the producers and workers, to the workers' associations for Belgium the Council shall designate representative and Italy. organizations amongst which it shall allocate the seats to be filled. Each By a letter of 4 June 1974 the Con organization shall be required to draw up federation then notified the Secretary- a list containing twice as many names as General of the Council of the names of there are seats to be allotted to it. two candidates for one of the seats to be Appointment shall be made from this allotted to the workers' representative list. ...' organizations for France.
C.F.D.T. v COUNCIL
The Secretary-General of the Council II — Conclusions of the parties replied to this communication by a letter of 1 July 1976 in which he pointed out With regard to the admissibility of the that 'the organizations which must hold application the defendant contends that office on the Committee are designated the Court should give a ruling on the by the Council on the proposal of the plea of inadmissibility without consider Governments of the Member States' and ing the substance of the application and concluded that as the Confederation did should dismiss the application as not appear amongst the workers' inadmissible. organizations in the abovementioned decision of 1 June 1976 it was The applicant claims that the Court impossible for him to submit the should:
proposed candidates to the Council. — dismiss the plea of inadmissibility which has been put forward and By a decision of 10 July 1976 (OJ L 194, order the inquiry which has been 1976, p. 16) the Council completed the requested; decision of 1 June 1976. — alternatively, reserve its decision on the objection for the final judgment On 14 July 1976 the Confederation and order the measures of inquiry lodged an application for the annulment which have been requested. of the decision of the Council of 1 June 1976 which was also directed against the refusal of the Secretary-General III — Submissions and argu contained in his letter of 1 July 1976. ments of the parties
3. In a document lodged on 20 A — The defendant maintains that the September 1976 the Council maintained application is inadmissible both with pursuant to Article 91 (1) of the Rules of regard to the decision of 1 June 1976 Procedure of the Court of Justice that and the refusal of 1 July 1976 of the the application was inadmissible. Secretary-General of the Council.
addition, by a document dated 9 1. The annulment of the decision of 1 December 1976, the Confederation June 1976 lodged an application before the Conseil d'Etat against the Prime Minister The application is inadmissible having concerning its exclusion from the list regard to the first and second paragraphs of workers' representative organizations of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty since submitted to the Council for member according to this article: ship of the Consultative Committee of — such proceedings may only be the ECSC. instituted against measures adopted by the High Authority whereas these On 30 November 1976 the proceedings concern a measure of the Confederation submitted written Council; observations in accordance with Article — only the undertakings or associations 91 (2) of the Rules of Procedure. of undertakings referred to in Article 48 of the Treaty are entitled (second Having heard the report of the paragraph of Article 33) to institute Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the proceedings whereas the Confeder Advocate-General the Court decided to ation is neither an undertaking open the oral procedure relating to the within the meaning of Article 80 of plea of inadmissibility in accordance the Treaty nor an association of with Article 91 (4) of the Rules of undertakings within the meaning of Procedure. Article 48.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 2. 1977 — CASE 66/76
The application is also inadmissible (a) the production of the documents having regard to Article 38 of the Treaty which the French Government sent
since this article expressly states that: to the Council containing the list of — only the Member States or the High workers' representative organizations Authority are entitled to institute in France together with 'the proceedings against an act of the correspondence arising from this Council; procedure'; — the only grounds for such (b) the examination of Mr Hommel, proceedings shall be lack of Secretary-General of the Council, and competence or infringement of an of Mr J.-R. Bernard, Secretary- essential procedural requirement General of the Interministerial whilst the present application is Committee on European Economic based upon the ground of Cooperation, who can explain to the infringement of Article 18 of the Court how the representation of the Treaty. French trade-union organizations is in fact determined. 2. The refusal of the Secretary-General contained in his letter of 1 July 1976 The Confederation then notes that:
The application is inadmissible because: — Since the first paragraph of Article 33 — the applicant does not constitute one of the Treaty does not refer to of the bodies referred to in Articles applications against the Council, it does 33, 38, 48 and 80 of the Treaty; not apply to the present case and thus — the subject-matter of the application cannot be invoked in order to contest the is not either a decision or a admissibility of the present application. recommendation of the High Auth Furthermore it is untrue that workers' ority (Article 33) or an act of the organizations are not entitled to institute Assembly or of the Council (Article proceedings against decisions of the 38), since the Secretary-General's letter amounts to a mere mem High Authority; orandum; — the purpose of the application lodged — assuming, which is impossible, that by the Association is a request for the the letter in question may be enforcement of Community law, in considered as an 'act' of the Council, particular Article 18 of the ECSC Treaty. the ground relied upon in support of According to Article 31 of the Treaty it is the application, infringement of the in fact the task of the Court of Justice to Treaty, is not amongst those which ensure that Community law is observed. may be put forward under Article 38 As is stated not only in the aforesaid of the Treaty. Article 31 but also in the third paragraph of Article 40 and in Article 41 of the B — In its written observations the Treaty the jurisdiction of the Court in applicant replies first of all that since this sphere is, moreover, exclusive. the selection of workers' organizations Accordingly the French courts have no required to draw up a list of candidates jurisdiction in this matter. for the Committee is in practice left to the governments concerned, the very fact — Bringing the present action before that the Council does not actually the Court does not conflict with Article exercise the powers reserved to it by the 38 of the Treaty which entitles Member second paragraph of Article 18 of the States alone to contest the 'acts' of the Treaty seems to indicate that in this case Council. The application does not in fact there was not 'compliance with essential concern an 'act of the Council but a procedural requirements'. In order to 'refusal to act' since the Council has not clarify this point the Confederation acted but has merely substituted for its suggests that the Court should order: act a 'purely administrative confirmation'.
C.F.D.T. v COUNCIL
There is no provision which prohibits IV — Oral procedure bringing this failure to act before the Court. Nor must it be forgotten that The parties presented oral argument at since the Council has left the initiative to the hearing on 13 January 1977. the Member States it is impossible for them or one of their number to bring The Advocate-General delivered his their own decisions before the Court of opinion at the hearing on 2 February Justice. 1977.
Law
1 By an application lodged at the Court on 14 July 1976 the Confederation requested the annulment of the decision of the Council of 1 June 1976 (OJ L 149, 1976, p. 12) 'designating representative organizations required to draw up lists of candidates' for the Consultative Committee referred to in Article 18 of the ECSC Treaty.
2 By the same application the Confederation requested the annulment of the refusal of the Secretary-General of the Council contained in his letter of 1 July 1976 to submit to the Council the candidates proposed to him by the Confederation in its letter of 4 June 1976 for one of the seats to be allotted to workers' representative organizations for France.
3 In support of its claims the applicant maintains that its exclusion since 1966 from the workers' representative organizations designed to fill one of the seats on the Consultative Committee allotted to France constitutes an infringement of the provisions of the EEC Treaty, in particular Article 18.
4 By an application lodged on 20 September 1976 the defendant submitted an objection of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure.
5 In support of this objection it claims that neither Article 33 nor Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty empowers the Confederation to submit such an application and it infers from this that the application should be dismissed as inadmissible without considering the substance of the case.
6 The Confederation argued that this objection was not well-founded and maintained in particular that the admissibility of the application flows from
JUDGMENT OF 17. 2. 1977 — CASE 66/76
the basic principle of Article 31 of the ECSC Treaty whereby 'the Court shall ensure that in the interpretation and application of this Treaty, and of the rules laid down for the implementation thereof, the law is observed'.
7 It further maintains that in the absence of a real opportunity to institute proceedings within the national legal system there is a risk that the inadmissibility of the action before the Court of Justice will mean that its case cannot be heard.
8 Whilst the principles upon which the applicant relies call for a wide interpretation of the provisions concerning the institution of proceedings before the Court with a view to ensuring individuals' legal protection they do not permit the Court on its own authority to amend the actual terms of its jurisdiction.
9 Pursuant to Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty an act of the Council may be declared void by the Court only on an application by a Member State or the High Authority.
10 Since the proceedings were instituted with regard to subject-matter other than that defined by Article 38 the application fails to fulfil an essential condition as to admissibility laid down by this provision.
11 Since Article 33 of the Treaty permits an application to be made only against acts of the Commission it is not applicable to the present case which is an application against the Council.
12 Moreover, although the provisions of the ECSC Treaty do not entitle the applicant to submit a direct application against acts of the Council it still remains possible for the Court to review the validity of acts of the Council at the instigation of a national court on the conditions laid down in Article 41 of the Treaty.
C.F.D.T. v COUNCIL
13 In so far as the application is directed against the letter of the Secretary General of the Council of 1 July 1976 it likewise lacks a legal basis on the said Articles 33 and 38.
14 Furthermore this letter merely confirms the contested decision of the Council and recalls the procedure followed by it in appointing members of the Consultative Committee.
15 For these reasons the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.
16 Finally, with regard to the request to stay the procedure of the appointment of new members of the Consultative Committee contained in the application this request becomes irrelevant from the point when the Court declares the application inadmissible.
Costs
17 Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party must be ordered to bear the costs.
18 Nevertheless under Article 69 (3) of the Rules of Procedure the Court may order that the parties should bear their own costs, where the circumstances are exceptional.
19 Those circumstances may be held to obtain when a trade union institutes proceedings with the sole aim of ensuring that the Consultative Committee is representative, a requirement expressly laid down by Article 18 of the Treaty.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
OPINION OF MR REISCHL — CASE 66/76
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Kutscher Pescatore Sørensen
Mackenzie Stuart Bosco O'Keeffe Touffait
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 February 1977.
A.Van Houtte H. Kutscher
Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL REISCHL DELIVERED ON 2 FEBRUARY 1977 1
Mr President, office of the Committee appointed in Members of the Court, 1974 came to an end on 24 June 1976.
The case on which I am giving my The applicant, a French trade union with opinion today concerns the formation of members from the iron and steel the Consultative Committee provided for industry, knowing this fact, sent a letter in the ECSC Treaty. to the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers on 4 June 1976. It pointed Under Article 18 of that Treaty this out that although it was the second committee consists of representatives of largest of the French unions in the producers, workers, consumers and abovementioned sector, it had not had a dealers. As regards the workers' seat on the Consultative Committee
representatives, the only ones relevant to since 1966. In addition it nominated two these proceedings, Article 18 further candidates for a seat to which, in its provides that the Council shall designate opinion, its organization should be workers' representative organizations entitled.
among which it shall allocate the seats to be filled. The organizations thus However, this letter met with no success. appointed are required to draw up a list In fact the Council had already containing twice as many names as there designated, by Decision of 1 June 1976 are seats allotted to them. The Council (OJ L 149, p. 12), the representative then appoints the members of the organizations which are under a duty to Consultative Committee from this list for draw up lists of candidates for the two years. Consultative Committee. However, the applicant organization was not listed in This procedure had to be followed once the annex to this decision as one of the more in Summer 1976 as the term of four French workers' organizations to
I — Translated from the German.