«(State aid – Refusal of the Commission to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Treaty – Action for annulment – Inadmissible)»

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal of the Commission to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Treaty – Excluded (EC Treaty, Arts 93(1) and 173) When the Court is considering whether an action for the annulment of a negative decision of an institution is admissible, that decision must be appraised in the light of the nature of the request to which it constitutes a reply. Where, in response to a request made by an undertaking, the Commission refuses to propose to the government of a Member State appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Treaty concerning a general aid scheme, such a refusal is not an act amenable to an action under Article 173 of the Treaty since the act requested cannot be challenged under that provision.Such an act does not constitute a measure which produces binding legal effects and is such as to affect the interests of that undertaking, since according to the actual wording of Article 93(1) of the Treaty, appropriate measures are merely proposals which the State concerned is not bound to adopt.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) 22 October 1996 (1)

((State aid – Refusal of the Commission to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the Treaty – Action for annulment – Inadmissible))

In Case T-330/94,

applicant, supported by

intervener,

v

defendant, supported by

intervener,

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the Commission stated that it had found no reason to propose appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty with regard to the Netherlands regional aid scheme Subsidieregeling regionale investeringsprojecten 1991,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: C.P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J.D. Cooke, Judges,

Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 July 1996,

gives the following

Arguments of the parties

Findings of the Court

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)

hereby:

Briët

Vesterdorf

Lindh

Potocki

Cooke

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22 October 1996.

H. Jung

C.P. Briët

Registrar

President