EUR-Lex - 61997B0596 - EN
Avis juridique important
|
61997B0596
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 1998.
-
Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
-
Action for annulment - Competition law - Decision requiring the supply of information - Periodic penalty payments - Notification - Manifest inadmissibility.
-
Case T-596/97.
European Court reports 1998 Page II-02383
Summary
Keywords
1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - A decision imposing a periodic penalty payment and a decision definitively fixing the amount thereof - Difference(EC Treaty, Art. 173;
Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art. 16(1)) 2 Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action contesting a decision which has several addressees but indicates only the address of one as the notification address of the others - Inadmissible (EC Treaty, Art. 173)
Summary
1 Any measure producing binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.The decision referred to in Article 16(1) of Regulation No 17 imposing a periodic penalty payment expressed in terms of a number of units of account per day of delay, calculated from a date fixed by it, does not produce binding legal effects and does not therefore constitute a challengeable measure for the purposes of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Nor does such a decision produce binding legal effects in so far as it holds the applicant jointly liable for the periodic penalty payments imposed on addressees of the same decision.
That decision constitutes only a procedural stage during which the Commission adopts, where appropriate, a decision definitively fixing the total amount of the periodic penalty payment and thus bearing enforceable authority.
Before it may adopt this enforceable decision, the Commission must, however, fulfil certain procedural obligations. 2 Where a decision having a number of addressees indicates only the address of one of them as the notification address of the others, the addressee who receives notification cannot have any interest in challenging any irregularities in notification since he is not obliged to forward the decision to the other addressees and, if the notification were to be regarded as irregular, the decision would quite simply take no effect in their regard. The question whether irregularities were committed in such notification will be relevant only if it should be necessary to determine whether the contested decision was properly notified to the other addressees and, should this be the case, to determine the date from which the period which they had for instituting proceedings against that decision under Article 173 of the Treaty began to run.