T-71/99
ECLI:EU:T:1999:115
- Súd
- Všeobecný súd Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61999TO0071
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
MEYER V COMMISSION
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 1 June 1999 *
In Case T-71/99,
Karl L. Meyer, farmer, residing at Uturoa, Isle of Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-Dominique des Areis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities,
defendant,
APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 17 February 1999 refusing to grant the emergency aid requested by the applicant in order to
* Language of the case: French.
II - 1729
ORDER OF 1. 6. 1999 — CASE T-71/99
deal with the damage caused to his tropical-fruit plantations by cyclones and, secondly, damages for the losses suffered,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges, Registrar: H. Jung,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 The applicant runs a tropical-fruit plantation on the Isle of Raiatea in French Polynesia.
2 By letter dated 3 November 1998 to Mr Y. Roland-Gosselin, Adviser in charge of relations with the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) assigned to the Commission's Directorate-General for Development (external relations and development cooperation with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific: Lomé II - 1730
MEYER V COMMISSION
Convention) (DG VIII), the applicant sought emergency aid from the European Union in the amount of EUR 100 000 in order to deal with damage to his plantation caused by several cyclones. In support of his request he relied on several provisions of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, hereinafter 'Decision 91/482').
3 He reiterated his request for aid in a letter dated 22 January 1999 addressed to Mrs S. Suomalainen, Head of the Pacific (Fiji, Solomon Isles, Kiribati, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Isle, French Polynesia, Western Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna) Unit in Directorate C (Caribbean, Pacific and Indian Oceans) in DG VIII.
4 On 17 February 1999 the Commission rejected that request, essentially stating that the Council's rules and decisions did not make provision for such aid to be granted directly to individuals.
5 By letter dated 19 February 1999 the applicant requested the Commission to reconsider its refusal on the ground that it was discriminatory. Stating that he was in disagreement with the grounds of that refusal, he insisted that his request was well founded, at the same time alleging a failure by the Commission to apply to French Polynesia Article 366 of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 3, hereinafter 'the Lomé Convention') and approved by Council and Commission Decision 91/400/ECSC, EEC of 25 February 1991 (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1).
6 By letter of 21 February 1999 the applicant went on to justify his request for aid under Article 92(2) (now, after amendment, Article 87(2) EC) and Article 132(4) (now Article 183(4) EC) of the EC Treaty. II - 1731
ORDER OF 1. 6. 1999 — CASE T-71/99
7 On 2 March 1999 the Commission confirmed its reply of 17 February 1999.
8 Under those circumstances, by application lodged at the Court Registry on 10 March 1999, the applicant brought this action.
Form of order sought by the applicant
9 The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare all his claims admissible and well founded;
— hold that the letter dated 17 February 1999 from DG VIII is inconsistent with both the applicable legislation of and fundamental rights in the European Union and order the Commission to observe, without exercising discretion, the content and spirit of Decision 91/482 and Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty;
— hold that the Community has incurred liability by not observing the abovementioned provisions; II - 1732
MEYER V COMMISSION
— order the Commission to pay him the sum of FRF 20 000 for irrecoverable expenditure incurred by him in defending his interests.
Law
10 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as amended with effect from 1 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 103, p. 6), where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking in any foundation in law, the Court of First Instance may by reasoned order and without taking further steps in the proceedings give a decision on the action.
1 1 In the present case the Court considers that the case-file provides sufficient elucidation and decides under that article to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
12 It appears from the application that the applicant is seeking annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to grant the request for emergency aid which he requested, the issue of a direction to the Commission, together with an order that the Community pay to him damages for the losses which he claims to have suffered.
13 First, it should be recalled that the Court of First Instance does not have jurisdiction to issue directions to the Community institutions, the Member States or to natural or legal persons (judgment in Case T-575/93 Koelman v Commission [1996] ECR II-1, paragraph 29). It follows that the applicant's request to the Court of First Instance to order the Commission to observe, II - 1733
ORDER OF 1. 6. 1999 — CASE T-71/99
without exercising its discretion, the content and spirit of Decision 91/482 and Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty is inadmissible.
14 Secondly, it cannot but be noted that the arguments submitted by the applicant in support both of his action for annulment and his claim for damages are manifestly without any foundation in law.
15 In his application he pleads haphazardly infringement of several provisions of Decision 91/482, infringement of Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty, breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and failure by the Commission to act in light of Article 366 of the Lomé Convention.
16 First, as the Commission stated in its letter of 17 February 1999, the applicant cannot found his claim on the provisions of Decision 91/482 which he mentions in his letter of 3 November 1998 and in his application. All those provisions govern relations between the Community and the OCTs. None of them provides that the Community is to grant to individuals so requesting emergency aid in the event of natural disasters such as those notified by the applicant.
17 Secondly, the applicant cannot derive any individual right from Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty. It is sufficient to point out in that connection that that provision concerns compatibility with the common market of aid granted by Member States. However, in this case the aid requested is manifestly not aid of that kind.
18 Thirdly, although mention is made in the application of a failure to observe the duty to provide a statement of reasons, it is not possible to discern from the terms II - 1734
MEYER V COMMISSION
in which the application is couched what precise allegation the applicant is making against the Commission under cover of this argument. In any event, the contents of the Commission's letter of 17 February 1999 state the ground on which its refusal to give a favourable reply to the applicant's request was justified, namely that the action requested is not provided for in the legislation relied on by the applicant.
19 Nor, fourthly, can the applicant derive any support from Article 366 of the Lomé Convention, which states;
'1. This Convention is hereby concluded for a period of 10 years, commencing on 1 March 1990.
2. The Community and the Member States, on the one hand, and the ACP States, on the other, shall notify the other Party not later than 12 months before the expiry of the first five-year period of any review of the provisions they desire to make with a view to a possible amendment of the Convention. Notwithstanding this time limit, if one Party requests the review of any provisions of the Convention, the other Party shall have a period of two months in which to request the extension of the review to other provisions related to those which were the subject of the initial request.
Ten months before the expiry of this five-year period, the Contracting Parties shall enter into negotiations with a view to examining any possible amendments to the provisions that were the subject of the notification.
Articles 359 and 360 on the conclusion, ratification and entry into force of the Convention shall also apply to amendments thus made to the Convention. II - 1735
ORDER OF 1. 6. 1999 — CASE T-71/99
The Council of Ministers shall adopt any transitional measures that may be required in respect of the amended provisions until they come into force.
3. 18 months before the end of the total period of the Convention, the Contracting Parties shall enter into negotiations in order to examine what provisions shall subsequently govern relations between the Community and the Member States, on the one hand, and the ACP States, on the other. The Council of Ministers shall adopt any transitional measures that may be required until the new Convention comes into force.'
20 There is no provision in that article for payment of specific emergency aid to an individual established on the territory of one of the ACP States. The article determines the duration of the Lomé Convention and the procedure to be followed in connection with its review after an intial five-year period or at the end of its currency.
21 Since the various arguments raised by the applicant in support of his claim for annulment of the Commission's decision of 17 February 1999 are manifestly without any foundation in law, his claim for damages, which is essentially based on the same arguments, must likewise be regarded as without any basis in law.
22 It follows from the foregoing that this action must be dismissed as manifestly without any foundation in law. II - 1736
MEYER V COMMISSION
Costs
23 Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure the applicant is to bear his own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The applicant's claim for an order against the Commission enjoining it to observe, without exercising discretion, the content and spirit of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community and Article 92(2) of the EC Treaty is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The claims for annulment and damages are dismissed as manifestly without any foundation in law. II - 1737
ORDER OF 1. 6. 1999 — CASE T-71/99
3. The applicant shall bear his own costs.
Luxembourg, 1 June 1999.
H.Jung M. Jaeger Registrar President
II - 1738