Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:36
Date: 1999-01-28
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Appeal - successful
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Scope — Whether the 
institution concerned is obliged to re-examine a decision similar to the measure 
annulled but uncontested in judicial proceedings — No such obligation 
(EC Treaty, Art. 176 (now Art. 233 EC) 
2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Decision not contested in good time — Legal 
certainty — Whether the institution concerned is obliged to re-examine similar 
decisions — No such obligation 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC)) 
I - 5363 
SUMMARY — CASE C-310/97 Ρ 
1. Although, in cases where a measure has 
been annulled by the Community judi­
cature, Article 176 of the Treaty (now 
Article 233 EC) requires the institution 
which had adopted that measure to 
ensure that any measure intended to 
replace it is not affected by the same 
irregularities as those identified in the 
judgment annulling the original mea­
sure, that provision does not mean 
that, at the request of parties to whom 
identical or similar decisions have been 
addressed, but who have not them­
selves brought proceedings, the institu­
tion must re-examine those decisions, 
allegedly affected by the same irregu­
larity. 
The scope of a judgment annulling a 
measure is limited in two respects: 
— first, since it would be ultra vires 
for the Community judicature to 
rule ultra petita, the scope of the 
annulment may not go further than 
that sought by the applicant; 
— secondly, although the authority 
erga omnes exerted by an annulling 
judgment given by the Community 
judicature attaches to both the 
operative part and the ratio deci­
dendi, it cannot entail annulment of 
a measure alleged to be vitiated by 
the same illegality, but which has 
not been challenged before the 
Community judicature. 
2. A decision which has not been chal­
lenged by the addressee within the 
time-limit laid down by Article 173 of 
the Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 230 EC) becomes definitive as 
against him. The purpose of time-limits 
for bringing legal proceedings is to 
ensure legal certainty by preventing 
Community measures which produce 
legal effects from being called in ques­
tion indefinitely. Where a number of 
similar individual decisions imposing 
fines have been adopted pursuant to a 
common procedure and where only 
some of the addressees have taken legal 
action and secured the annulment of 
those decisions, the principle of legal 
certainty precludes any need for the 
institution which adopted the decisions 
to re-examine, at the request of other 
addressees and in the light of the 
grounds of the annulling judgment, 
the legality of the unchallenged deci­
sions and to determine, on the basis of 
that examination, whether the fines 
paid must be refunded. 
I - 5364