Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - NOTICE TO THE INSTITUTION TO ACT - REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF A MEASURE - CONCEPTS - REQUEST FOR A FINDING THAT AID GRANTED BY A STATE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET - BAR - INADMISSIBILITY
( EEC TREATY , SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF ART . 175 )

A PERSON OTHER THAN A MEMBER STATE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN NOTICE BY THE COMMISSION , AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , TO SUBMIT HIS COMMENTS ON AID CONTEMPLATED BY A MEMBER STATE AND WHO HAS AVAILED HIMSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT THE AID IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ), IS NOT ENTITLED TO BRING AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS .

IN FACT SUCH A REQUEST ON THE ONE HAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ' ' INVITATION ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE INITIATED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 93 AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 , SINCE IT IS NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESS AN ACT TO THE APPLICANT .

IN CASE 59/79
FEDERATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , UNLESS THE COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES OTHERWISE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS TO BE ORAL . THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS , FOR OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE AND IT HAS DECIDED , AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ), TO ADJUDICATE FORTHWITH UPON THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS .

THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE . IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO INITIATE A PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 93 OF THE EEC TREATY IT HAS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE THIS PROCEDURE . THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT AVAILED ITSELF OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IT BY THE COMMISSION DURING THIS PROCEDURE TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED TO THE INSTITUTION ' S ' ' BEING CALLED UPON TO ACT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY WHICH CAUSES THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE TO START TO RUN . FURTHERMORE IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY COMPLAIN TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE , PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAME ARTICLE , ONLY THAT AN INSTITUTION HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS TO THAT PERSON ANY ACT OTHER THAN A RECOMMENDATION OR AN OPINION . THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION AN APPLICATION WHICH FULFILS THOSE CONDITIONS .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .

2 . THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .