Order of the Court of 10 June 1993. - The Liberal Democrats v European Parliament. - Actions against Community institutions for failure to act - Act of the Parliament - Uniform electoral procedure - No need to give a decision. - Case C-41/92.



European Court reports 1993 Page I-03153



Summary

Parties

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Actions against Community institutions for failure to act ° Failure rectified after the action had been brought ° Application no longer having any subject-matter ° No need to give a decision

(EEC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

When, in an action against a Community institution for failure to act, the act whose omission constitutes the subject-matter of the dispute has been adopted after the action has been brought but before delivery of the judgment, the application will no longer have any subject-matter and there is consequently no need to give a decision.

Parties

In Case C-41/92,

The Liberal Democrats, a political party in the United Kingdom, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC, of the Scots Bar, Alastair Sutton, Anthony P. Lester QC, and Daniel Bethlehem, all of the Bar of England and Wales, and Michael J.S. Renouf, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by Jorge Campinos, Jurisconsult, Johann Schoo and François Vainker, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States, the European Parliament has infringed Article 138(3) of the EEC Treaty, Article 21(3) of the ECSC Treaty, Article 108(3) of the EAEC Treaty and Article 7(1) of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 (OJ 1976 L 278, p. 1),

THE COURT,

Composed of: O. Due, President, C.N. Kakouris, G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias and J.L. Murray (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, M. Diez de Velasco, P.J.G. Kapteyn and D.A.O. Edward, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Darmon,

Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 February 1992, the Liberal Democrats, a political party in the United Kingdom, brought an action under the third paragraph of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by failing to draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States, the European Parliament has infringed Article 138(3) of the EEC Treaty, Article 21(3) of the ECSC Treaty, Article 108(3) of the EAEC Treaty and Article 7(1) of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 (OJ 1976 L 278, p. 1).

2 On 10 March 1993 the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 138(3) of the EEC Treaty, adopted Resolution A3-0381/92 on the draft uniform electoral procedure for the election of Members of the European Parliament.

3 Following a request by the Court that it set out its views on whether its action served any further purpose in the light of the adoption of the above resolution, the applicant acknowledged that the European Parliament had acted in the manner required by Article 138(3) of the EEC Treaty.

4 In those circumstances, without its being necessary to examine the admissibility of the action for failure to act brought against the European Parliament or to determine whether that institution was indeed guilty of a failure to act at the time when the action was brought, it must in any event be held that it is no longer necessary to give judgment on this application.

Decision on costs

Costs

5 Under Article 69(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are in the discretion of the Court. Without having to determine the degree to which the pleas in law relied on by the parties are well founded, the Court finds that the circumstances of the case and the course of the procedure provide sufficient grounds to justify an order that the parties should bear their own costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby orders:

1. There is no need to give a decision.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 10 June 1993.