Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1997:132
Date: 1997-09-18
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Food aid;Development cooperation;External relations
Concepts: Proceedings relating to a contract;Limitation periods;Notification
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgmen t 
1. Anions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the Court of First 
Instance of its own motion 
(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para.) 
2. Aas of the institutions — Individual decision — Notification — Concept 
(EC Treaty, Art. 191(3)) 
3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Actions for the free supply of agri­
cultural products to the peoples of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan 
— Conditions of carriage — Costs reUting to discharge of vessels — Obligation to pay 'dis­
patch money' 
(Council Regulation No 1975/95; Commission Reguhtions Nos 2009/95 and 449/96) 
II - 1355 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T-121/96 AND T-151/96 
1. The time-limit prescribed for bringing an 
action under Article 173 of the Treaty is a 
matter of public policy and is not subject 
to the discretion of the parties or the 
Court, since it was established in order to 
ensure that legal positions are clear and 
certain and to avoid any discrimination or 
arbitrary treatment in the administration 
of justice. Since, pursuant to Article 113 
of the Rules of Procedure, failure to 
observe the time-limit constitutes an 
absolute bar to the admissibility of the 
action, the Court of First Instance must 
ascertain of its own motion whether it 
was observed. 
2. A decision is duly notified if it is notified 
to the person to whom it is addressed and 
that person is placed in a position to 
become aware of the existence of the 
decision and the reasons given by the 
institution to justify it. 
3. It is clear from Council Regulation No 
1975/95 on actions for the free supply of 
agricultural products to the peoples of 
Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyr-
gyzstan and Tajikistan, Regulations Nos 
2009/95 and 449/96 adopted by the Com­
mission within the framework established 
by that regulation, the decision of 27 
March 1996 awarding the contract and 
the Memorandum drawn up on 10 Octo­
ber 1995 between the Commission and 
the Georgian authorities, that undertak­
ings which submitted successful tenders 
for the transport were required to pay 
'dispatch money' to the Georgian 
authorities, where necessary. Since the 
successful tenderer was able to examine 
those provisions, neither the fact that a 
'no dispatch' clause was contained in the 
charter-party entered into between the 
successful tenderer and the shipowner, 
nor the fact that no 'dispatch' rate was 
notified when the contract was awarded 
is such as to relieve the applicant of that 
obligation. On the one hand, the charter-
party is intended only to govern the rela­
tionship between the successful tenderer 
and the shipowner and does not in any 
way affect the applicant's legal position 
vis-à-vis the Commission, and on the 
other hand, no provision of the regula­
tions applicable in the instant case 
requires the Commission to determine 
the 'dispatch' rate before or at the time of 
awarding the various contracts of car­
riage. 
II - 1356