Order — ECLI:EU:C:1995:360
Date: 1995-10-26
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fisheries policy
Concepts: General;Independent nature of the action for damages
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Summary of the O r d e r 
1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Acts producing binding legal 
effects — Commission letter refusing an application for Community financial aid 
(EEC Treaty, Art. 173) 
2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Issue of directions to 
an institution — Not permissible 
(EEC Treaty, Art. 173) 
I - 3709 
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-199/94 P AND C-200/94 P 
3. Actions for damages — Distinction from actions for annulment — Limits 
(EEC Treaty, Arts 173 and 178) 
1. A letter by which the Commission clearly 
and unambiguously informs an undertak­
ing which has submitted an application 
for financial aid under Regulation N o 
4028/86 on Community measures to 
improve and adapt structures in the fish­
eries and aquaculture sector that its appli­
cation has been refused for lack of bud­
getary funds constitutes an act producing 
definitive legal effects with regard to the 
addressee where, by virtue of the relevant 
provisions of that regulation, the applica­
tion in question cannot be carried for­
ward to the next budgetary year. Such a 
letter amounts to proper notification of 
the decision contained therein and time 
for the purposes of bringing proceedings 
under Article 173 therefore starts to run 
on the day on which the undertaking 
concerned is apprised of its contents. 
2. When exercising judicial review of legal­
ity under Article 173 of the Treaty, the 
Community judicature has no jurisdic­
tion to issue directions, even where they 
concern the manner in which its judg­
ments are to be complied with. 
3. Although a party may take action by 
means of a claim for compensation with­
out being obliged by any provision of law 
to seek the annulment of the illegal meas­
ure which causes him damage, he may not 
by those means circumvent the inadmissi­
bility of an application which concerns 
the same instance of illegality and which 
has the same financial end in view. That 
would be the case if an undertaking 
which had failed to bring an action in 
good time for the annulment of a refusal 
to grant its application for Community 
financial aid were considered to have 
standing to bring an action for damages 
seeking payment of precisely the same 
amount as would have been granted by 
way of Community aid, increased by 
interest, on the basis of the same pleas in 
law alleging illegality as those put for­
ward in support of the belated action for 
annulment. 
I - 3 7 1 0