Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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 competition 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)

3 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Subject-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))

Summary

1 The time-limits for initiating proceedings are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of either the Court or the parties. Consequently, a party cannot rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in order to avoid application of the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 232 EC), by reference to the contact it had with the Commission after the letter of formal notice. Neither statements by the Commission 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 affecting 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 provisions 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 implementation of the competition rules, since neither Regulation No 17 nor Regulation 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 proceedings and include a brief statement of the grounds relied on. The information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court of First Instance to decide the case, if appropriate without further information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, 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 reasons 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.