Judgment of the Court of 16 June 1970. - SA Alcan Aluminium Raeren and others v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 69-69.



European Court reports 1970 Page 00385

Danish special edition Page 00063

Greek special edition Page 00325

Portuguese special edition Page 00369



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF - TARIFF QUOTAS - DECISION OF THE COMMISSION - DECISION ADDRESSED TO A MEMBER STATE - RIGHT OF ACTION FOR INDIVIDUALS - ABSENCE OF SUCH RIGHT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 173 )

Summary

AN AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION TO A MEMBER STATE TO OPEN A TARIFF QUOTA MERELY CREATES A POWER IN FAVOUR OF THE STATE CONCERNED . NEITHER THE GRANT NOR THE REFUSAL OF A TARIFF QUOTA CAN THEREFORE BE OF DIRECT CONCERN TO UNDERTAKINGS WHICH MIGHT POSSIBLY HAVE BENEFITED FROM SUCH A QUOTA .

Parties

IN CASE 69/69

SA ALCAN ALUMINIUM RAEREN, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAEREN ( BELGIUM ),

SA SOCIETE FRANCO-BELGE DES LAMINOIRS ET TREFILERIES D' ANVERS ( LAMITREF ), WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HEMIKSEN ( BELGIUM ),

NV WERKHUIZEN REMY CLAEYS, WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT LICHTERVELDE ( BELGIUM ),

ALL REPRESENTED BY MARCEL GREGOIRE, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF TONY BIEVER, AVOCAT-AVOUE, 83 BOULEVARD GRANDE-DUCHESSE-CHARLOTTE, APPLICANTS,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, JEAN AMPHOUX, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, EMILE REUTER, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION CONCERNING, AT THE PRESENT STATE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT COMPANIES AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 12 MAY 1969 REFUSING TO ALLOW THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG TO OPEN FOR THE YEAR 1968 A TARIFF QUOTA FOR UNWROGHT ALUMINIUM UNDER HEADING 76.01 A OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF,

Grounds

1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 25 NOVEMBER 1969, THE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, DATED 12 MAY 1969, WHICH REFUSED TO ALLOW THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG TO OPEN FOR THE YEAR 1968 A TARIFF QUOTA FOR UNWROGHT ALUMINIUM UNDER HEADING 76.01 A OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF .

2 THE COMMISSION HAS REQUESTED THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, TO RULE ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS APPLICATION, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE, CONTENDING THAT THE APPLICANTS LACKED THE LOCUS STANDI TO MAKE THE APPLICATION IN VIEW OF THE CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY LAID DOWN BY THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY AND ALSO ALLEGING, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT THE APPLICATION WAS OUT OF TIME .

3 UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY, ANY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY, UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE, INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO THAT PERSON OR AGAINST A DECISION WHICH, ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION OR A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON, IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE FORMER .

4 THE AIM OF THIS PROVISION IS TO ENSURE THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS IN ALL CASES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIRECTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY A COMMUNITY MEASURE - IN WHATEVER FORM IT APPEARS - WHICH IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THEM .

5 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DECISION OF 12 MAY 1969, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PRESENT CASE, IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS, ALTHOUGH IT IS ADDRESSED TO THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG .

6 THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS TAKEN WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COMMISSION BY PROTOCOL NO XII ON UNWROGHT ALUMINIUM, ANNEXED TO THE AGREEMENT OF 2 MARCH 1960 ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PART OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF RELATING TO PRODUCTS IN " LIST G ".

7 UNDER THIS PROTOCOL AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THEREIN PRESCRIBED, " THE COMMISSION SHALL AUTHORIZE ... THE BENELUX COUNTRIES ON THEIR REQUEST TO OPEN ANNUAL TARIFF QUOTAS SUBJECT TO A DUTY OF 5 PER CENT TO COVER THE IMPORT NEEDS OF THEIR PROCESSING INDUSTRIES ... ".

8 A DECISION TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION, IN PURSUANCE OF THE PROVISION QUOTED ABOVE, HAS THUS NO EFFECT OTHER THAN TO CREATE A POWER IN FAVOUR OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED, AND DOES NOT CONFER ANY RIGHTS ON POSSIBLE BENEFICIARIES OF ANY MEASURES TO BE TAKEN SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE SAID STATES .

9 IT APPEARS CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE GRANT, UNDER PROTOCOL NO XII, OF A TARIFF QUOTA CARRYING A REDUCED RATE OF DUTY IN FAVOUR OF THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG WOULD NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DIRECTLY CONCERNING UNDERTAKINGS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE AWARD THUS MADE .

10 HOWEVER, THE APPLICANTS POINT OUT THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS A NEGATIVE DECISION AND NOT ONE GRANTING AN AUTHORIZATION .

11 CONSEQUENTLY THE DECISION IS, IT IS ALLEGED, OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THEM SINCE IT DEPRIVES THEM OF ANY POSSIBILITY OF ENJOYING A REDUCED RATE OF DUTY UNDER A TARIFF QUOTA .

12 FURTHERMORE, IT IS ALLEGED THAT, AS THE DECISION WAS TAKEN AFTER THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR TO WHICH IT REFERRED, THE IDENTITY OF THE IMPORTERS WHO MIGHT HAVE BENEFITED FROM THE SAID QUOTA WAS DEFINITIVELY ESTABLISHED, SO THAT THE DECISION REJECTING THE SAID REQUEST IS OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE IMPORTERS .

13 THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF 12 MAY 1969 CANNOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANTS THE BENEFITS WHICH THEY SEEK, AS SUCH BENEFITS CAN RESULT ONLY FROM THE OPENING OF TARIFF QUOTAS BY NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AFTER AN AUTHORIZATION GRANTED BY THE COMMISSION TO THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED .

14 IT APPEARS THEREFORE THAT THE APPLICATION AIMS IN FACT AT REQUIRING THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT A MEASURE, THE EFFECTS OF WHICH, UNDER PROTOCOL NO XII, CAN AFFECT ONLY THE MEMBER STATES .

15 THE DECISION REJECTING THE REQUEST DOES NOT THEREFORE CONCERN THE APPLICANTS IN ANY OTHER MANNER THAN WOULD THE POSITIVE DECISION WHICH THEY WISH TO OBTAIN .

16 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE, AS THE APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 .

17 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD .

Decision on costs

18 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

19 THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INADMISSIBLE .

20 THE APPLICANTS MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS .