C-60/79

ORDER OF THE COURT OF 11 JULY 1979 <apnote>1</apnote>

Federation Nationale des Producteurs de Vins de Table et Vins de Pays v Commission of the European Communities

Case 60/79

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Trade associations — Measure challenged affecting the general interests of their category — Inadmissibility (EEC Treaty, second paragraph ofArt. 173)

2. Action for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Measure applied for — Regu­ lation — Inadmissibility (EEC Treaty, third paragraph ofArt. 175)

1. It is not possible to accept the 2. A regulation amending another regu­ principle that an association, in its lation cannot be classified as a capacity as the representative of a measure which may be addressed to a category of businessmen, is natural or legal person within the individually concerned by a measure meaning of the third paragraph of affecting the general interests of that Article 175 of the EEC Treaty. category.

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

PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS v COMMISSION

"It seems to us to be essential to achieve fact be regarded as an individual complete equality of aid, whatever the decision; the aid was introduced origin of the concentrated musts, on the for the benefit of all wine basis of 1.16 units of account per degree producers fulfilling certain of potential strength per hectolitre. We objective conditions and not in hope the French Government may be favour of specified traders. able to bring the matter before the Commission in Brussels with ,a view to — The regulation complained of achieving this equality." entrusts Member States with important tasks relating to its According to the applicant the said implementation, which precludes official brought the letter to the notice of it from being regarded as of the Commission. direct concern to the applicant.

The Commission, by an application dated 23 May 1979, received at the The applicant points out that, although it Court on 25 May 1979, has raised an failed to mention Article 173, it objection of inadmissibility pursuant to nevertheless referred to Article 85 in Article 91 (1) of the Rules of Procedure connexion with the discriminatory aid of the Court. It puts forward the and drew attention to the dominant following arguments: position resulting from this aid. If it is assumed that the applicant has not referred to Article 173 there is a (a) Application for annulment: principle derived from the general law that a court before which redress is — The Court has always refused to sought proceeds of its own motion, acknowledge that associations are especially as, in cases concerning a entitled to bring an action for the dominant position, the prohibited annulment of measures which agreements or decisions are auto­ may adversely affect the interests matically void. It is the wine-growing of their members; furthermore members of the Federation who, having Regulation No 130/79 cannot in been asked to state the origin of the

ORDER OP 11 7. 1979 — CASK 60/79

concentrated must purchased by them, the question of allowing legal persons drew the attention of their association to other than a State to institute the existence of discrimination in proceedings is concerned the Court regional aids and instructed it to expose should therefore acknowledge that the this discriminatory feature more spirit of the Treaty extends further than effectively than they could. The French its case-law and that it is perfectly Conseil d'État has acknowledged that a legitimate to allow associations to make trade association has the right to full use of the right conferred bv Articles intervene in legal proceedings. As far as 173 and 175.

As far as the application for the annulment pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty is concerned the regulation in question cannot be considered to be a decision addressed to the applicant within the meaning of that article or to be a decision of direct and individual concern to it, although in the form of a regulation. The regulation in question is in fact purely legislative and applies to every wine-producer in the Community. Moreover it should be stressed that, as the Court has already declared, in particular in its judgment of 14 December 1962 in Joined Cases 16 and 17/62 (Confederation Nationale des Producteurs de Fruits et de Legumes and Others and Federation Nationale des Producteurs de Raisins de Table v Council of the European Economic Community [1962] ECR 479), it is not possible to accept the principle that an association, in its capacity as the representative of a category of businessmen, is individually concerned by a measure affecting the general interests of that category. The action under this head is therefore inadmissible.

PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS v COMMISSION

As far as the application under Article 175 of the Treaty is concerned the only legal instrument which might possibly meet the applicant's request would have been a regulation amending Regulation No 130/79; an amending regulation of this kind cannot be classified as a measure which may be addressed to the applicant within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 175. The action under this head is therefore also inadmissible.

A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher

Registrar President