CELEX: 61996TO0186
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-03 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 3 October 1997. # Mutual Aid Administration Services NV v Commission of the European Communities. # Tendering procedure for the transport of free supplies of agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan - Commission`s refusal to pay to the successful tenderer the whole of the price claimed - Action for annulment - Action constituting, in reality,an action for performance of a transport contract - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of first Instance - Manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment. # Case T-186/96.

Avis juridique important

|

61996B0186

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 3 October 1997.  -  Mutual Aid Administration Services NV v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Tendering procedure for the transport of free supplies of agricultural products intended for the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan - Commission`s refusal to pay to the successful tenderer the whole of the price claimed - Action for annulment - Action constituting, in reality,an action for performance of a transport contract - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of first Instance - Manifest inadmissibility of the action for annulment.  -  Case T-186/96.  

European Court reports 1997 Page II-01633

Summary
Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action constituting, in reality, an action for performance of a contract - Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature - Action brought by a successful tenderer for the transport of food aid - Inadmissible(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 181 and 183)  

Summary

In the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction, when proceedings for annulment are brought before it on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty, to adjudicate on an action which, in reality, constitutes a claim for performance based in contract.  For the Court to do so would be to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of which it may take cognizance, since that article specifically gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.Consequently, proceedings for annulment brought by a successful tenderer for the transport of food aid to third countries against the Commission's refusal to pay it the whole of the transportation price are manifestly inadmissible, since an application of that kind, although lodged on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty, constitutes, in reality, an action for performance of a contract concluded between the tenderer and the Commission for the transport of the supplies in issue.