61979CO0532(01)_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN JOINED CASES 532, 534, 567, 600, 618 AND 660/79
1 . JAN AMESZ, RESIDING AT 28 VIA CARNISIO, COCQUIO ( VARESE ), ITALY,
2 . ROLF BAUCH, RESIDING AT 13 VIA MATTEOTTI, ANGERA ( VARESE ), ITALY,
3 . JAKOB FLAMM, RESIDING IN THE VIA GRAZIA DELEDDA, RANCO ( VARESE ), ITALY,
4 . HANS HOFFMANN, RESIDING AT 2 VIA CERVINO, TAINO ( VARESE ), ITALY,
5 . HELMUT KNOEPPEL, RESIDING AT 116 VIA MATTEOTTI, CADREZZATE ( VARESE ), ITALY,
6 . HENRICUS NIJMAN, RESIDING AT 55 VIA CORRIDONI, VARESE, ITALY,
REPRESENTED BY B . POTTHAST AND H.-J . RUBER, OF THE COLOGNE BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF V . BIEL, 18A, RUE DES GLACIS,
APPLICANTS,
V
1 . COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY J . PIPKORN, A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF O . MONTALTO, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
2 . COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, J . CARBERY, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF D . FONTEIN, DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANTS,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE CLAIMS SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ACTIONS,
Grounds
THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COUNCIL MUST BE UPHELD . AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF REGULATIONS NO 3085/78 AND NO 3086/78 OF THE COUNCIL IS INADMISSIBLE, SINCE THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION ARE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED TO DECISIONS WHICH, ALTHOUGH TAKEN IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS, ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS . MOREOVER, EVEN IF SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL WERE ADMISSIBLE IN THAT RESPECT IT WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TIME, HAVING BEEN LODGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE EAEC TREATY, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY .
THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION SEEKS TO OBTAIN PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS THOSE WHICH THEY WOULD OBTAIN FROM THE ANNULMENT OF THE REGULATIONS . THE COURT HAS HELD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1966 ( SCHRECKENBERG, CASE 59/65 ( 1966 ) ECR 543 ) THAT ALTHOUGH A PARTY MAY TAKE ACTION BY MEANS OF A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION WITHOUT BEING OBLIGED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE ILLEGAL MEASURE WHICH CAUSES HIM DAMAGE, HE MAY NOT BY THIS MEANS CIRCUMVENT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION WHICH CONCERNS THE SAME ILLEGALITY AND WHICH HAS THE SAME FINANCIAL END IN VIEW . THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICATIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
HOWEVER, ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STATES THAT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL .
2 . THE APPLICANTS AND THE COUNCIL SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .