THAT QUESTION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE . THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY ARE NOT SATISFIED , SINCE THE TWO INSTITUTIONS ADOPTED A DEFINITIVE POSITION ; MOREOVER , IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DECISIONS ON THE MATTER , THE ACTIONS FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY ARE ALSO INADMISSIBLE . THE COUNCIL ADDS THAT IT HAS NO POWER UNDER THE TREATIES TO ISSUE DECLARATIONS OF THE KIND REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND THAT IN ANY EVENT THE ACTIONS ARE OUT OF TIME .
6 IN HIS WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS ON THE OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY THE APPLICANT ARGUES ESSENTIALLY THAT BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION WERE UNDER A DUTY TO ACT IN A CASE OF SUCH MANIFEST INJUSTICE . A MERE REFUSAL TO ACT , UNACCOMPANIED BY A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL , DOES NOT , IN HIS VIEW , CONSTITUTE THE DEFINITION OF A POSITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY . HE MAINTAINS THAT , SINCE THE INSTITUTIONS DID NOT DEFINE THEIR POSITION , TIME DID NOT START TO RUN UNTIL TWO MONTHS AFTER THE INSTITUTIONS WERE CALLED UPON TO ACT AND THEREFORE THE TIME-LIMIT WAS IN FACT COMPLIED WITH .
7 IN VIEW THE OF FACT THAT THE TWO CASES ARE RELATED , IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THEY SHOULD BE JOINED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 43 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .
8 BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , WHERE AN APPLICATION IS LODGED UNDER ARTICLE 91 ( 1 ), THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THAT APPLICATION ARE TO BE ORAL UNLESS THE COURT DECIDES OTHERWISE . IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE , THE COURT CONSIDERS THAT THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE IT PROVIDE IT WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION . IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE THAT THE COURT SHOULD GIVE ITS DECISION ON THE OBJECTIONS OF INADMISSIBILITY IN THE FORM OF AN ORDER AND DISPENSE WITH THE ORAL PROCEDURE .
9 THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT ANY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY COMPLAIN TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE THAT AN INSTITUTION HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS TO THAT PERSON ' ' ANY ACT OTHER THAN A RECOMMENDATION OR AN OPINION ' ' .
10 IN THAT CONNECTION , IT IS CLEAR - AND UNDISPUTED BY THE APPLICANT - THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS HAVE NO POWER TO ADOPT A MEASURE PUTTING AN END TO THE DETENTION OF A PERSON OR OTHERWISE DIRECTLY INFLUENCE HIS POSITION UNDER NATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW . THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY CLEARLY IN HIS LETTERS OF 2 DECEMBER 1983 AND DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE WHICH HE WAS CALLING UPON THE COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT . HOWEVER , IT EMERGES FROM HIS CLAIMS THAT HE WAS ASKING THEM TO EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE LEGAL SITUATION . SUCH AN OPINION