Commission of the European Communities v AssiDomän Kraft Products AB, Iggesunds Bruk AB, Korsnäs AB, MoDo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB.
Date: 1999-09-14
19 In paragraph 58, the Court of First Instance stated that, where an addressee did not bring an action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty for annulment of the Wood pulp decision in so far as that decision related to it, that decision continued to be valid and binding on it in all its aspects (see, to the same effect, Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf v Germany [1994] ECR I-833, paragraph 13).
49 Essentially, the appeal raises the question whether, where several similar individual decisions imposing fines have been adopted pursuant to a common procedure and only some addressees have taken legal action and obtained annulment, the institution which adopted them must, at the request of other addressees, re-examine the legality of the unchallenged decisions in the light of the grounds of the annulling judgment and determine whether, following such a re-examination, the fines paid must be refunded.
50 Article 176 of the Treaty, which was the only provision relied on before the Court of First Instance by the respondents and on which the contested decision is founded, requires the institution which adopted the annulled measure only to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling its measure.
52 First, since it would be ultra vires for the Community judicature to rule ultra petita (see the judgments in Joined Cases 46/59 and 47/59 Meroni v High Authority [1962] ECR 411, at page 419, and the judgment in Case 37/71 Jamet v Commission [1972] ECR 483, paragraph 12), the scope of the annulment which it pronounces may not go further than that sought by the applicant.
53 Consequently, if an addressee of a decision decides to bring an action for annulment, the matter to be tried by the Community judicature relates only to those aspects of the decision which concern that addressee.  Unchallenged aspects concerning other addressees, on the other hand, do not form part of the matter to be tried by the Community judicature.
54 Furthermore, although the authority erga omnes exerted by an annulling judgment of a court of the Community judicature (see, in particular, the judgments in Case 1/54 France v High Authority [1954-1956] ECR 1, at page 17; Case 2/54 Italy v High Authority [1954 to 1956] ECR 37, at page 55; and in Case 3/54 ASSIDER v High Authority [1954 to 1956] ECR 63) attaches to both the operative part and the ratio decidendi of the judgment, it cannot entail annulment of an act not challenged before the Community judicature but alleged to be vitiated by the same illegality.
55 The only purpose of considering the grounds of the judgment which set out the precise reasons for the illegality found by the Community Court (see, in particular, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-415/96 Spain v Commission [1998] ECR I-6993, paragraph 31) is to determine the exact meaning of the ruling made in the operative part of the judgment.  The authority of a ground of a judgment annulling a measure cannot apply to the situation of persons who were not parties to the proceedings and with regard to whom the judgment cannot therefore have decided anything whatever.
56 So, although Article 176 of the Treaty requires the institution concerned to ensure that any act intended to replace the annulled act is not affected by the same irregularities as those identified in the judgment annulling the original act, that article, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held in paragraphs 69, 72 and 85, does not mean that the Commission must, at the request of interested parties, re-examine identical or similar decisions allegedly affected by the same irregularity, addressed to addressees other than the applicant.
57 It is settled case-law that a decision which has not been challenged by the addressee within the time-limit laid down by Article 173 of the Treaty becomes definitive as against him (see, in particular, the judgment in Case 20/65 Collotti v Court of Justice [1965] ECR 847 and the judgment in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, cited above, at paragraph 13).
58 In view of that principle, the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that a Member State was no longer entitled, when defending infringement proceedings brought by the Commission, to challenge on the basis of Article 184 of the EC Treaty (now Article 241 EC) the validity of a decision which had been addressed to it pursuant to Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) when it had allowed the period within which it could bring an action for annulment to expire (see, to this effect, Case 156/77 Commission v Belgium [1978] ECR 1881, paragraph 20, and Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, paragraph 10).
59 Similarly, the Court has held that, although a party may bring suit by means of an action for damages without being obliged by any provision of law to seek annulment of the unlawful measure which caused him damage, that party may not by those means circumvent the inadmissibility of an application for annulment concerning the same instance of illegality and having the same financial end in view (see, in particular, Case 543/79 Birke v Commission and Council [1981] ECR 2669, paragraph 28; Case 799/79 Bruckner v Commission and Council [1981] ECR 2697, paragraph 19; and Case 175/84 Krohn v Commission [1986] ECR 753, paragraph 33).
60 Furthermore, in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, cited above, the Court held that Article 173 of the Treaty precluded the recipient of State aid who could have challenged the Commission decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the common market by bringing an action for annulment within the time-limit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty and who did not bring such an action from challenging before the national court the measures implementing the Commission decision by seeking to rely on the illegality of that decision.  A ruling to the opposite effect would give such a party the power to overcome the definitive nature which the decision has in relation to him once the time-limit for bringing legal proceedings has expired.
61 Such a rule is based in particular on the consideration that the purpose of having time-limits for bringing legal proceedings is to ensure legal certainty by preventing Community measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely as well as on the requirements of good administration of justice and procedural economy.
62 Finally, it is settled case-law that a judgment given by the Court of Justice or by the Court of First Instance annulling a measure can constitute a new fact causing time to start running again only with regard to the parties to the proceedings and to other persons directly affected by the measure which was annulled (Case 43/64 Müller v Councils of the EEC, EAEC and ECSC [1965] ECR 385, at page 397; Case 52/64 Pfloeschner v Commission [1965] ECR 981, at page 986; Joined Cases 15/73 to 33/73, 52/73, 53/73, 57/73 to 109/73, 116/73, 117/73, 123/73, 132/73 and 135/73 to 137/73 Kortner and Others v Council, Commission and Parliament [1974] ECR 177, paragraph 38; and Case 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice [1988] ECR 1619, paragraph 13).