Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1999:318
Date: 1999-12-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Competition;Agreements, decisions and concerted practices;Exclusive agreements
Concepts: General;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law;Contentious procedure
Procedure: Action for annulment - inadmissible;Action for damages - inadmissible;Action for failure to act - inadmissible;Action for failure to act - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for failure to act — Time-limits — Mandatory — Whether it is possible to rely 
on a legitimate expectation based on affirmations or statements of position made by the 
Commission — Not possible 
(EC Treaty, Art. 175, second para, (now Art. 232, second para., EC)) 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing 
binding legal effects — Administrative proceeding in implementation of the competi­
tion rules — Failure of the Commission to respond to a request for documents — Not 
an actionable measure 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC); Council Regulation 
No 17; Commission Regulation No 99/63) 
II - 3617 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-190/95 AND T-45/96 
3. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Procedural requirements — Sub­
ject-matter of the dispute to be indicated — Pleas in law relied upon to be briefly 
stated — Application claiming compensation for damage caused by a Community 
institution 
(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First 
Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) 
1. The time-limits for initiating proceed­
ings are a matter of public policy and 
are not subject to the discretion of 
either the Court or the parties. Conse­
quently, a party cannot rely on the 
principle of the protection of legitimate 
expectations in order to avoid applica­
tion of the second paragraph of Arti­
cle 175 of the Treaty (now the second 
paragraph of Article 232 EC), by refer­
ence to the contact it had with the 
Commission after the letter of formal 
notice. Neither statements by the Com­
mission in its correspondence with that 
party nor public declarations of its 
position can affect the admissibility of 
an action for failure to act. 
2. The acts or decisions against which an 
action for annulment may be brought 
under Article 173 of the EC Treaty 
(now, after amendment, Article 230 
EC) are those measures which produce 
binding legal effects capable of affect­
ing the interests of the applicant by 
bringing about a significant change in 
his legal position. Mere silence on the 
part of an institution cannot produce 
such effects unless express provision is 
made by Community law for it to do 
so. 
Where there are no such express provi­
sions laying down a deadline by which 
an implied decision is deemed to have 
been taken by the institution called 
upon to act and prescribing the tenor of 
that decision, an institution's inaction 
cannot be deemed to be equivalent to a 
decision without calling into question 
the system of remedies instituted by the 
Treaty. 
In respect of proceedings in implemen­
tation of the competition rules, since 
neither Regulation No 17 nor Regula­
tion No 99/63 provide that failure on 
the part of the Commission to respond 
to a request for documents may 
amount to an implied rejection, its 
silence cannot be construed as an 
actionable measure. 
3. Under Article 19 of the Statute of the 
Court of Justice and Article 44(1 )(c) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of 
First Instance, all applications must 
indicate the subject-matter of the pro­
ceedings and include a brief statement 
of the grounds relied on. The informa­
tion given must be sufficiently clear 
and precise to enable the defendant to 
II - 3618 
SODIMA V COMMISSION 
prepare his defence and the Court of 
First Instance to decide the case, if 
appropriate without further informa­
tion. In order to ensure legal certainty 
and the sound administration of jus­
tice, if an action is to be admissible, the 
essential facts and law on which it is 
based must be apparent from the text 
of the application itself, even if only 
stated briefly, provided the statement is 
coherent and comprehesible. 
In order to satisfy those requirements, 
an application seeking compensation 
for damage caused by a Community 
institution must state the evidence from 
which the conduct alleged against the 
institution can be identified, the rea­
sons for which the applicant considers 
there is a causal link between that 
conduct, the damage it claims to have 
suffered, and the nature and extent of 
that damage. 
II - 3619