Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Refusal by the Commission to initiate a procedure against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 173)

2. Actions against Community institutions for failure to act ° Natural or legal persons ° Failures to act against which actions may be brought ° Failure to bring an action for non-fulfilment of obligations ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175)

3. Procedure ° Action by a natural or legal person for an order requiring the Commission to initiate a procedure against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 164 et seq.)

4. Procedure ° Action by a natural or legal person for a declaration that a Member State has infringed Community law ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 164 et seq.)

5. Action for damages ° Autonomous form of action by comparison with actions for annulment and actions for failure to act ° Limits

(EEC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.)

Summary

1. An action brought by a natural or legal person for the annulment of a decision by the Commission not to initiate a procedure against a Member State for failure to fulfil its Treaty obligations is inadmissible, regardless of the nature of the alleged infringement of Community law.

2. Where an action is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration of failure to act, in that by not initiating infringement proceedings against a Member State the Commission has failed, in breach of the Treaty, to take a decision, that action is inadmissible.

Natural or legal persons may have recourse to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty only for a declaration that an institution has failed to adopt acts of which they are the potential addressees, thereby infringing the Treaty. Within the framework of the infringement procedure laid down by Article 169 of the Treaty, the only measures which the Commission may be induced to take are addressed to the Member States. Moreover, it is clear from the scheme of Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not obliged to commence proceedings under that provision but has a discretion in that regard which excludes the right for individuals to require that institution to adopt a specific position.

3. The Community judicature cannot address orders to a Community institution without encroaching on the prerogatives of the administrative authority concerned. It follows that an action brought by a natural or legal person for an order requiring the Commission to initiate an infringement procedure is inadmissible.

4. The Treaty makes no provision for any legal remedy enabling natural or legal persons to bring proceedings before the Community judicature on any issue regarding the compatibility of acts of the authorities of a Member State with Community law. Consequently, applications for a declaration that a Member State has infringed Community law are manifestly inadmissible.

5. An application for compensation made pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty constitutes an autonomous form of action, save where it in fact seeks to nullify the effects of allegedly unlawful acts an application for the annulment of which has been declared inadmissible. Consequently, in so far as claims for compensation arise from acts which are the same as those contested in claims for annulment and for a declaration of failure to act which have themselves been held to be inadmissible, they must be declared inadmissible as well.