BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Union de Pequenos Agricultores v Council (Agriculture) [2002] EUECJ C-50/00P (25 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2002/C5000P.html Cite as: [2002] EUECJ C-50/00P, [2003] 2 WLR 795, [2002] 3 CMLR 1, [2001] QB 68, [2003] QB 893, [2002] All ER (EC) 893, ECLI:EU:C:2002:462, [2002] ECR I-6677, [2002] EUECJ C-50/P, EU:C:2002:462 |
[New search] [Buy ICLR report: [2001] QB 68] [Buy ICLR report: [2003] 2 WLR 795] [Buy ICLR report: [2003] QB 893] [Help]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
25 July 2002 (1)
(Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 - Common organisation of the market in oils and fats - Action for annulment - Person individually concerned - Effective judicial protection - Admissibility)
In Case C-50/00 P,
Unión de Pequeños Agricultores, having its registered office in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Ledesma Bartret and J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate, Abogados, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
appellant,
APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 23 November 1999 in Case T-173/98 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [1999] ECR II-3357, seeking to have that order set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
Council of the European Union, represented by I. Díez Parra, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant at first instance,
supported by
Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Guerra Fernández and M. Condou-Durande, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
intervener in the appeal,
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,
Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 6 November 2001, at which Unión de Pequeños Agricultores was represented by J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate, the Council by I. Díez Parra and the Commission by J. Guerra Fernández and M. Condou-Durande,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 21 March 2002,
gives the following
The legal framework
Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the contested order
- in paragraph 46 of the contested order, that '[t]o establish this, however, natural or legal persons must be able to show that they are affected by the measure in question by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of factual circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons ...' and,
- in paragraph 47 of that order, that, furthermore, actions brought by associations may, in this context, be held admissible at least in situations where a legal provision expressly grants a series of procedural powers to trade associations, where the association represents the interests of undertakings which would, themselves, be entitled to bring proceedings and where the association is distinguished individually because of the impact of the contested measure on its own interests as an association, in particular because its negotiating position has been affected by the measure whose annulment is being sought.
'61 The argument that no effective legal protection is afforded consists of the complaint that there are no legal remedies under national law which make it possible, if necessary, to review the legality of the contested regulation by means of a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the [EC] Treaty [(now Article 234 EC)].
62 It must be pointed out, in this connection, that the principle of equality for all persons subject to Community law in respect of the conditions for access to the Community judicature by means of the action for annulment requires that those conditions do not depend on the particular circumstances of the judicial system of each Member State. In this regard it should also be observed that, in accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), the Member States are required to implement the complete system of legal remedies and procedures established by the EC Treaty to permit the Court of Justice to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions (see, on this point, the judgment in [Case 294/83] Les Verts v Parliament [[1986] ECR 1339], paragraph 23).
63 However, these factors do not provide the Court of First Instance with a reason for departing from the system of remedies established by the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, as interpreted by case-law, and exceeding the limits imposed on its powers by that provision.
64 Moreover, the applicant cannot validly base any argument on the possible length of proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty. That circumstance cannot justify a change in the system of remedies and procedures established by Articles 173, 177 and 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) which is designed to give the Court of Justice the power to review the legality of acts of the institutions. In no case can such an argument enable an action forannulment brought by a natural or legal person which does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty to be declared admissible (order of the Court of Justice in Case C-87/95 P CNPAAP v Council [1996] ECR I-2003, paragraph 38).'
The appeal
- set aside the contested order;
- declare its main action admissible and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment on the merits.
- declare the appeal manifestly inadmissible or, in the alternative, manifestly unfounded;
- order the appellant to pay the costs.
Admissibility of the appeal
Substance of the appeal
Arguments of the parties
Findings of the Court
Costs
49. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which also applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 118, the institutions which intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. In accordance with that provision, the Commission must bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT,
hereby:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Unión de Pequeños Agricultores to pay the costs;
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Rodríguez Iglesias
Colneric
Edward
Wathelet
Cunha Rodrigues
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 25 July 2002.
R. Grass G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias
Registrar President
1: Language of the case: Spanish.