WRITTEN QUESTION E-0606/97 by José Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE) to the Commission (27 February 1997)

Subject: Appeals before the Court of First Instance

Can the Commission explain why, whenever an individual appeals to the Court of First Instance requesting that a regulation adopted by the Council or Commission (except in cases involving anti-dumping issues or state aids) be annulled, the Community institutions automatically and systematically, without fail, raise an objection of inadmissibility against such an appeal?

Can the Commission indicate how many such appeals there have been and in what percentage of cases has no objection been raised?

Does the Commission not consider that such repeated instances on the part of the Community institutions could result in the absurd situation of a Community which, while assuming ever greater legislative powers by means of directly applicable acts, puts more obstacles in the way of individuals wishing to have access to justice and defend their rights by means of the only judicial bodies competent to rule on the legality of Community acts which may be detrimental to those individuals?

Does the Commission consider that this attitude is consistent with the right of each individual to have access to an impartial, independent court in order to uphold his or her rights, as enshrined in the constitutions of all the Member States and in particular in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (28 April 1997)

The Court of justice has the power to review the legality of acts adopted by the Council or the Commission, subject to the conditions laid down in Article 173 EC Treaty. The fourth paragraph of that provision limits the right for individuals to institute such proceedings to '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'. Therefore proceedings under Article 173 by an individual against a regulation are according to the Treaty provisions inadmissible, whether or not the defending institution raises a preliminary objection on the admissibility of the case, unless he is directly and individually concerned by the regulation. It should be noted, in particular, that according to the case law of the Court of justice, individuals can only claim to be individually concerned if the measure affects their legal position because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other people to whom it is addressed ((See Court of First Instance, Case T-489/93, Unifruit Hellas (1994) ECR II-1201, paragraph 21. )).

The Commission has no statistics on how many actions were brought by individuals for annulment of Council or Commission regulations. However, a survey of the case law of the Court of first instance between 1 January 1994 and 30 June 1996 shows that (except cases with respect to anti-dumping measures) only five judgments or orders concern applications of natural or legal persons to declare a Council or a Commission regulation void ((See Cases T-489/93, T-116/94, T-472/93, T-107/94, T-183/94, (1994) ECR II page 1201, (1995) ECR II pages 1, 421, 1717 and 1941. )).

With respect to the last questions, the Commission would point out that the Court has stated that the Community is 'based on the rule of law, in as much as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid a review of the question whether the measure adopted by them are in conformity with the basic constitutional charter, the Treaty. In particular, in Articles 173 and 184, on the one hand, and in Article 177, on the other, the Treaty establishes a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to permit the Court of justice to review the legality of measures adopted by the institutions. Natural or legal persons are thus protected against the application to them of general measures which they cannot contest directly before the Court by reason of the special conditions of admissibility laid down in the (fourth) paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

Where the Community institutions are responsible for the administrative implementation of such measures, natural or legal persons may bring a direct action before the Court against implementing measures which are addressed to them or which are of direct and individual concern to them and, in support of such an action, plead the illegality of the general measure on which they are based. Where implementation is a matter for the national authorities, such persons may plead the invalidity of general measures before the national courts and cause the latter to request the Court of justice for a preliminary ruling' ((Court of justice, Case 294/83 Parti Ecologist 'Les Verts' v. Parliament (1986) ECR 1339, paragraph 23, emphasis added. )).

As to Article 6 of the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedom, that provision is according to the Court of justice recognized by the Community judicature in the Community legal order. However, Article 6 cannot preclude certain criteria regarding admissibility from being set for the institution of judicial proceedings ((Court of First Instance, Case T-107/94, Kik v. Council and Commission (1995) ECR II, 1717, paragraph 39. )).