CELEX: C1996/046/12
Language: en
Date: 1996-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-392/95)

No C 46/8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      17 . 2 . 96
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by the European                    Geotronics SA, represented by Tommy Petterson, of the
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union               Swedish Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       ( Case C-392/95 )                              the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10, rue Mathias
                                                                      Hardt .
                          ( 96/C 46/12 )
An action against the Council of the European Union was               The Appellant claims that the Court should :
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 15 December 1995 by the European                       1 . set aside the abovementioned judgment of the Court of
Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo and Jose-Luis                       First Instance (the CFI );
Rufas Quintana , acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the               2. annul the decision addressed to Geotronics taken by the
European Parliament, Tower Building.                                        Commission rejecting Geotronics' tender as notified in a
                                                                            telefax received by Geotronics on 10 March 1994 ;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      3.    in the alternative declare that the Commission should
— annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, Council                  compensate Geotronics for the damage Geotronics has
     Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995                             suffered as a result of the decision, at the amount of ECU
     determining the third countries whose nationals must be                500 400 plus interest for each calendar month
     in possession of visas when crossing the external borders              corresponding to Libor 30 days plus 1 % on that
     of the Member States ( M ,                                             amount as from the date on which Geotronics was
                                                                            notified of the Commission's decision until payment is
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                    made;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       4 . order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
                                                                            proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings
Infringement of essential procedural requirements : in                      before the CFI .
adopting the contested regulation, the Council substantially
amended the proposal of the Commission on which the
Parliament had delivered its opinion pursuant to                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 100c of the EC Treaty. The Parliament should have
been reconsulted on                                                   Admissibility
— the right reserved to the Member States in Article 2 ( 1 ) of       The Court of First Instance rejected Geotronics' claim for
     the regulation to require the possession of a visa by             annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 March 1994
     nationals of third countries not on the common list,              is inadmissible. The Court of First Instance thereby erred in
     which disregards the objective of the harmonization of            law by not regarding the Commission's decision as an act or
     visa policy,                                                      decision which may be the subject of an action under
                                                                       Article 173 of the EC Treaty. The Commission's decision
— the mutual non-recognition of visas issued by each                   produced binding legal effects on Geotronics that affected
      Member State ( resulting from the removal of Article 2 of        its interests by distinctly changing its legal position and,
      the Commission's proposal ).                                     therefore, constitutes a decision which may be the subject of
                                                                       an action under Article 173 .
 (>) OJ No L 234, 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                       Substance
                                                                       The Court of First Instance concluded that, in the absence of
                                                                       any unlawful conduct whatever on the part of the
                                                                        Commission, Geotronics' claim for compensation must be
 Appeal brought on 18 December 1995 by Geotronics SA                   rejected as unfounded. The Court of First Instance therefore
 against the judgment delivered on 26 October 1995 by the              erred in law by not upholding Geotronics' view that the
 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        Commission had infringed the EEA Agreement by
 European Communities in Case T-185/94 ( ] ) between                    discriminating against goods of EEA origin. The
 Geotronics SA and the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Commission is bound by the EEA Agreement in accordance
                                                                        with Article 228 ( 7 ) of the EC Treaty.
                       ( Case C-395 /95 P)
                            ( 96/C 46/13 )                              The issue of retroactivity
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October                The Court of First Instance found that the Commission was
  1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance             right to rely on the general conditions laid down by it in the
  of the European Communities in Case T-185/94 between                  invitation to tender before the entry into force of the EEA
  Geotronics SA and the Commission of the European                      Agreement. As a result thereof the Commission was entitled
  Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of               to discriminate against Geotronics' products on grounds of
  the European Communities on 18 December 1995 by                       their provenance .