Wiljo NV v Belgische Staat.
Date: 1997-01-30
15 According to the Commission, there is no need to rule on the questions or at least some of the questions referred to the Court because they call in question, directly or indirectly, the validity of its decision of 6 May 1993. The owner of a vessel intended to be used on inland waterways whose application for an exemption under Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation has been rejected by the Commission may no longer call in question the validity of that rejection in an action brought against a national measure implementing that decision once the time-limit prescribed by Article 173 of the EC Treaty for applying for its annulment has expired.  The Commission refers, in particular, to the judgment in Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf v Germany [1994] ECR I-833.
16 Wiljo contests that view.  It maintains that the national authorities have primary responsibility for administering the Fund and that it was therefore reasonable for it to assume that the Commission's decision could be challenged in proceedings against those authorities before the national courts, particularly in view of the Commission's statement, in its letter of 6 May 1993, that a copy of the decision was to be sent to the Belgian authorities.
17 Wiljo refers here to the judgment in Joined Cases 133/85 to 136/85 Rau Lebensmittelwerke and Others v BALM [1987] ECR 2289, in which the Court ruled that the possibility of bringing a direct action under Article 173 of the Treaty against a decision of a Community institution does not preclude the possibility of bringing an action before a national court against a measure adopted by a national authority for the implementation of that decision, on the ground that the latter decision is unlawful.
18 Lastly, Wiljo observes that the judgment in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, cited above, was delivered after the time-limit for bringing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993 had expired.
19 It is settled law that a decision adopted by a Community institution which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by Article 173 of the Treaty becomes definitive as against him (see, in particular, the judgments in Case 20/65 Collotti v Court of Justice [1965] ECR 847, Case 156/77 Commission v Belgium [1978] ECR 1881 and Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, paragraphs 9 and 10).  Such a rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Community measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely.
20 This rule, which applies to the addressees of a decision, such as Wiljo, was reiterated in the judgment in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, in which the Court held that the principle established in the cases referred to above could, in certain circumstances, also apply to a recipient of State aid forming the subject-matter of a Commission decision addressed directly to the Member State alone in which the recipient was established.
21 In essence, the Court held that a recipient of aid could not plead the invalidity of a decision, addressed by the Commission to a Member State, notified by that State to the recipient and ordering that Member State to recover the aid granted to the recipient, in proceedings brought before the national courts against the implementing decision taken by the authorities of that State where the recipient of the aid had failed to apply under Article 173 of the Treaty for annulment of the Commission's decision and where he could undoubtedly have done so.  To find otherwise would enable the recipient of the aid to overcome the definitive nature which a decision necessarily assumed, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, once the time-limit laid down by Article 173 for bringing proceedings had expired.
22 As regards the argument based on the judgment in Rau Lebensmittelwerke and Others, cited above, it is sufficient to recall that it was rejected by the Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf on the ground that it was clear from the Report for the Hearing in Rau that each of the plaintiffs in the main proceedings had brought an action before the Court of Justice for annulment of the decision in question and that the Court did not therefore rule, and did not have to rule, in that judgment on the time-barring effect of the expiry of the period in which proceedings had to be brought.
23 In the present case, it is not disputed that Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation gives the Commission sole power to exempt specialized vessels, that Wiljo requested it to adopt a decision pursuant to that provision, that Wiljo did not apply under Article 173 of the Treaty for annulment of the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993 which was addressed to it, even though it could undoubtedly have done so, and that it has instead brought proceedings before the national court challenging the implementation of the Commission's decision by the Belgian authorities.
24 It follows from all those considerations that, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, the national court is bound by the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993 addressed to Wiljo, according to which the Smaragd is not a specialized vessel within the meaning of Article 8(3)(c) of the Regulation.
25 It is therefore necessary to examine whether the sole purpose of the questions referred to this Court is to enable the national court to resolve the question of the validity of the Commission's decision of 6 May 1993, or whether those questions also relate to the interpretation of the provisions defining the scope of the Regulation.
30 In those circumstances, to alter the substance of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the way proposed by Wiljo would be incompatible with the Court's function under Article 177 of the Treaty and with its duty to ensure that the Governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations under Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court, bearing in mind that, under that provision, only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases 141/81 to 143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 6, and the order in Case C-191/96 Modesti [1996] ECR I-3937, paragraph 5).