CELEX: 61995TO0235(02)
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 March 1998. # Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities. # Action for annulment - Request for interim measures to be taken by the Commission - Powers of the Commission - Confirmatory act - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility. # Case T-235/95.

Avis juridique important

|

61995B0235(02)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 March 1998.  -  Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Action for annulment - Request for interim measures to be taken by the Commission - Powers of the Commission - Confirmatory act - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility.  -  Case T-235/95.  

European Court reports 1998 Page II-00523

Summary
Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action brought against a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit - Inadmissible - Definition of a confirmatory decision - Identical decision taken after re-examination of the circumstances - Excluded from the definition(EC Treaty, Art. 173) 2 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing legal effects - Administrative procedure for the application of competition rules - Decision to reject a request for interim measures (EC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 173, fourth para.; Regulation No 17, Art. 3(1))  

Summary

3 An action for the annulment of a decision which merely confirms a previous decision not contested within the time-limit for bringing the proceedings is inadmissible.  A decision is merely confirmatory of a previous decision if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom that previous measure was addressed.4 An action for annulment may be brought only against measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the applicant's interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal situation. In order for a decision refusing a request for interim measures under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17 to constitute an actionable measure, the Commission must have the power to order the measures requested. In that regard, it is quite clear that the Commission has no power, in the exercise of its powers under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17, to issue directions to national courts, to take measures concerning them in abstracto, even in its capacity as `guardian of the Treaties', or to assess the validity of their decisions.  Consequently, its refusal to adopt such measures does not affect any aspect of the legal situation of the person requesting it to do so, and his interests can thus in no way be affected whether that decision is upheld or annulled.