CELEX: 61997TO0207
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-12 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 March 1998. # Georges Berthu v Council of the European Union. # Economic and monetary policy - Council Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Replacement of the name "ECU" provided for by Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name "euro" - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility. # Case T-207/97.

Avis juridique important

|

61997B0207

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 March 1998.  -  Georges Berthu v Council of the European Union.  -  Economic and monetary policy - Council Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Replacement of the name "ECU" provided for by Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name "euro" - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility.  -  Case T-207/97.  

European Court reports 1998 Page II-00509

Summary
Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Action brought by the holder of a transferable security drawn in ecus - Inadmissibility(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 1103/97)  

Summary

An action brought by an individual for annulment of Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, which requires, in particular, that every reference to the ecu, as mentioned in Article 109g of the Treaty, is to be replaced by a reference to the euro, is inadmissible.In this respect, the fact that the applicant holds a French fungible Treasury bond drawn in ecus is not enough to give him locus standi under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. While the change in the name of the single currency does affect the applicant, it is only in his capacity as a citizen of a Member State and user of the single currency, and in the same way as any other citizen or undertaking in a Member State, so that the disputed act is not of individual concern to him.