CELEX: 61993TJ0494
Language: en
Date: 1996-09-24 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996. # Compagnie Continentale (France) v Commission of the European Communities. # Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility. # Case T-494/93.

Avis juridique important

|

61993A0494

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 24 September 1996.  -  Compagnie Continentale (France) v Commission of the European Communities.  -  Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility.  -  Case T-494/93.  

European Court reports 1996 Page II-01157

Summary
Keywords

1. Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics ° Commission decision addressed to the borrower, refusing to recognize amendments made to contracts concluded between the agent designated by the borrower and an undertaking to which the contract is awarded as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions ° Action brought by the undertaking ° Inadmissibility(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.) 2. Actions for annulment ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Claims for restoration of the applicant' s rights ° Inadmissibility (EC Treaty, Art. 173)  

Summary

1. In the implementation of a loan granted by the Community to the Soviet Union and its constituent republics in order to enable agricultural and food products and medical supplies to be imported, an undertaking awarded a contract for the supply of wheat is not directly concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision addressed to the financial agent of the borrowing republic refusing to recognize amendments made to the contracts concluded between the contracting undertaking and the agent designated for that purpose by the borrowing republic as being in conformity with the applicable Community provisions, since that undertaking has a legal relationship only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the agent appointed to conclude purchase contracts, whilst the Commission has legal relations only with the party with whom it contracts, namely the financial agent of the borrowing republic, and the action of the Commission, whose role is merely to verify that the conditions laid down by the Community rules are fulfilled, does not therefore affect the legal validity of the aforementioned contracts.It follows that the undertaking to which the contract is awarded does not have the right to bring proceedings for annulment of the decision in question. 2. In an action for annulment based on Article 173 of the Treaty, the role of the Community judicature is restricted to reviewing the legality of the contested act. In those circumstances, a claim for restoration of the applicant' s rights goes beyond the limits of the jurisdiction conferred on the Community judicature by the Treaty and must therefore be declared inadmissible.