C-59/79
ECLI:EU:C:1979:188
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61979CO0059
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ORDER OF 11. 7. 1979 — CASE 59/79
In Case 59/79
FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS
v
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
THE COURT
composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco, A. Touffait and T. Koopmans, Judges,
Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte
Upon hearing the Advocate General,
makes the following
ORDER
Facts and issues
The Commission, by a decision dated other than the Member States, to present 8 December 1978 notified to the Italian their comments within eight weeks Republic, initiated the procedure (Official Journal C 305 of 21 December provided for in Article 93 (2) of the EEC 1978, p. 3). Treaty against a draft law of the Sicilian Region on "Special measures for the purpose of supporting and developing the economy of the island and also strengthening its civil structures". On 25 January 1979 the applicant, the Fédération Nationale des Producteurs de Under this procedure the Commission Vins de Table et Vins de Pays, lodged a gave notice to the parties concerned, complaint with the President of the
PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS v COMMISSION
Commission in which it pointed out that procedural requirements of the proposed subsidy of Lit 300 per 100 Article 93.
kilograms of grapes processed by the co operative wineries of Sicily was (b) The procedure for holding an incompatible with Article 92 of the administrative inquiry has not yet Treaty and requested him to find in been concluded, since no decision accordance with the procedure laid has yet been reached on the draft aid down in Article 93 (3) that this aid was measures in question and not incompatible with the Common consequently the aid cannot be put Market. into effect.
The applicant has not suffered any The Commission did not reply and the injury. applicant, by an application dated 10 April 1979, received at the Court on 13 (c) The applicant's conclusions cannot April 1979, has brought an action against be accepted. The Commission is the the Commission under Article 175 of the only body which is competent to EEC Treaty for failure to act. It claims decide as to the incompatibility of that the Commission has not dealt with any aid with Article 92 and the its "complaint" of 25 January 1979 Court cannot substitute itself for the within the prescribed period, and, in its Commission. conclusions, claims that the Court should declare that the aid in question is not compatible with the Common Market according to Article 92 of the Treaty and In answer to these arguments the cause it to be abolished in accordance applicant points out that: with the emergency procedure laid down in Article 93 (3) of the Treaty. (a) It has an "interest" in obtaining a reply from the Commission, since it is authorized to represent the The Commission, by an application collective interest of French wine dated 18 May 1979, received at the growers, and in challenging the Court on 22 May 1979, has raised an Commission's failure to reply. objection of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 91 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. It puts forward the (b) The Commission has been called following arguments: upon to act by the letter which the applicant has addressed to it.
(a) Article 175 of the Treaty does not (c) The Commission may reply to the apply: applicant without however taking a decision; that is the object of the — The Commission has not first action for failure to act. been given formal notice to act. (d) To request the Court to declare that — The Commission has a a proposal is incompatible with reasonable period within which Article 92 is not the same as to conclude an inquiry held requesting it to substitute itself for pursuant to Article 93 (2) of the the executive when the executive has Treaty, and the period specified failed to reply to comments for in Article 175 of the Treaty has which it has asked on the proposal absolutely no connexion with the complained of.
ORDER OF 11. 7. 1979 — CASE 59/79
Decision
According to Article 91 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, unless the Court of Justice decides otherwise the remainder of the proceedings concerning a pre liminary objection is to be oral. The Court is of the opinion that there are no grounds, for opening the oral procedure and it has decided, as provided for in Article 91 (3), to adjudicate forthwith upon the application in the light of the written statements.
The application is inadmissible. If the Commission decides to initiate a procedure pursuant to the provisions of Article 93 of the EEC Treaty it has a reasonable period within which to complete this procedure. The fact that the applicant availed itself of the opportunity afforded it by the Commission during this procedure to submit its comments cannot be assimilated to the institution's "being called upon to act" within the meaning of Article 175 of the Treaty which causes the period of two months referred to in the second paragraph of that article to start to run. Furthermore it should be pointed out that a natural or legal person may complain to the Court of Justice, pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of the same article, only that an institution has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion. The applicant has not addressed to the Commission an application which fulfils those conditions.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders as follows:
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 11 July 1979.
A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher
Registrar President