Order — ECLI:EU:T:2004:9
Date: 2004-01-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: President of the Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Approximation of laws
Concepts: Application for interim measures: suspension of operation of the contested measure and other interim measures
Procedure: Action for annulment;Application for interim measures - unfounded;Action for damages
Origin: Belgium;Spain;Netherlands

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and for the Court to give judgment on the action without recourse to further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. More particularly, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution must set out the evidence from which the conduct which the applicant alleges against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered and the nature and extent of that damage (Joined Cases T-215/01, T-220/01 and T-221/01 Calberson GE v Commission [2004] ECR II-0000, paragraph 176; Case T-19/01 Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II-0000, paragraph 64 et seq.). 121 The Court finds that the application in the present case does not satisfy those requirements in that it does not clearly, unequivocally, coherently and fully set out the evidence for the alleged damage on the one hand and the causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct and that damage on the other. 122 The applicants’ allegations as to the origin of the damage caused are so vague that the Court is not in a position to make a ruling. As is clear from the findings set out in paragraphs 108 to 113 above, it is impossible to identify with sufficient certainty the fact giving rise to the damage, or the start and therefore the duration of the alleged damage. Moreover, the applicants have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show how the pecuniary loss estimated at at least EUR 250 000, which they claim to have suffered as a result of their concerted efforts to have rosin declassified, and the alleged damage resulting from the alleged loss of business with their customers, was caused by the unlawful conduct principally alleged, namely the contested act itself. 123 It should also be noted that the applicant’s argument as to the causal link is contradictory: first, and principally, they allege that the damage results from the contested act itself, and secondly, contrary to the first allegation, they claim at least implicitly that it is the ‘unlawful classification’ which gave rise to their damage. Nevertheless, the applicants conclude at paragraph 102 of the application that ‘with respect to the causal link between the illegality of the contested measure and the damages incurred … it is clear that interruption of their commercial relationships with their customers, including the replacement by such customers of rosin with other substances, arises directly from the Commission’s negative decision related to the delisting of rosin in Annex I to Directive 67/548’. 124 It follows that, as regards the identification of the alleged damage and the causal link between the allegedly unlawful conduct and that damage, the application does not satisfy the requirements laid down by Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure. Lastly, even if the claim for compensation were admissible, it follows from all the foregoing that, in any event, it is manifestly unfounded. 125 The present claim for compensation must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. 3. The admissibility of the plea of illegality raised under Article 241 EC Arguments of the parties 126 The defendant also challenges the admissibility of the plea of illegality raised by the applicants against Directives 93/72 and 94/69. 127 The intervener makes no observations as regards the admissibility of the plea of illegality. 128 The applicants claim in the alternative that, in the event that the claim for annulment is found to be inadmissible, the Court should declare that the inclusion of rosin in Annex I to Directive 67/548 is inapplicable to them, pursuant to Article 241 EC. Findings of the Court 129 As regards the admissibility of the plea of illegality, it suffices to refer to the settled case-law to the effect that the possibility afforded by Article 241 EC of pleading the inapplicability of a measure of general application forming the legal basis of the contested decision does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea. Consequently, Article 241 EC cannot be invoked in the absence of an independent right of action given, in this case, the inadmissibility of the claims for annulment and for damages (Case 33/80 Albini v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 2141, paragraph 17; Joined Cases 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commissionand Council [1985] ECR 2523, paragraph 36; Case T‑154/94 CSF and CSME v Commission [1996] ECR II-1377, paragraph 16; and the order of 19 September 2001 in Joined Cases T-54/00 and T-73/00 Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa and Others v Council [2001] ECR II-2691, paragraph 82). 130 It follows that the plea of illegality raised under Article 241 EC must be rejected as inadmissible without its being necessary to consider whether the contested act is linked to Directives 93/72 and 94/69. Costs 131 Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the other party’s pleadings. Since the applicants have been unsuccessful they must, having regard to the form of order sought by the Commission, be ordered to pay the costs. 132 Under the first subparagraph of Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. Accordingly, the Republic of Finland as intervener shall bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible. 2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the defendant. 3. The intervener shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 14 December 2005. E. Coulon M. Jaeger Registrar President Table of contents Law 1. Relevant provisions of the EC Treaty 2. Classification as a dangerous substance 3. Adaptation of Directive 67/548 to technical progress Facts and procedure Law 1. The admissibility of the application for annulment of the contested act Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court Preliminary observations The legal nature of the contested act – Preliminary observations – The allegedly administrative and individual nature of the examination of the intrinsic properties of the substances – The allegedly administrative and definitive nature of the Commission’s refusal and the applicability of the case-law on the rejection of complaints or comfort letters in the field of competition The existence of procedural guarantees in favour of individuals in the course of the procedure for the adaptation of Directive 67/548 to technical progress – Preliminary observations – The existence of express procedural guarantees in the context of the procedure for the adaptation of Directive 67/548 to technical progress – The existence of procedural guarantees arising from general principles of law The applicants’ right to an effective legal remedy 2. The admissibility of the claim for compensation Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court 3. The admissibility of the plea of illegality raised under Article 241 EC Arguments of the parties Findings of the Court Costs * Language of the case: English.