Avis juridique important

Judgment of the Court of 1 April 1965. - Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v Commission of the EEC. - Case 38-64. European Court reports French edition Page 00263 Dutch edition Page 00418 German edition Page 00278 Italian edition Page 00256 English special edition Page 00203 Danish special edition Page 00045 Greek special edition Page 00073 Portuguese special edition Page 00075

Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

++++

MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - APPLICATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON - DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

CF . SUMMARY IN CASE 1/64, ( 1964 ) ECR 413 .

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

A DECISION OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SCOPE AND EFFECT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO AN UNDERTAKING, EVEN IF THE LATTER OCCUPIES A SPECIAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT IN THE MARKET OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES .

*/ 664J0001 /*.

IN CASE 38/64

GETREIDE-IMPORT GESELLSCHAFT GMBH, WITH A REGISTERED OFFICE IN DUISBURG, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGERS, WILHELM SPECHT AND WILHELM BREDER, ASSISTED BY KURT REDEKER OF THE BONN BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF GEORGES REUTER, 7 AVENUE DE L' ARSENAL,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY CLAUS-DIETER EHLERMANN, MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC OF 23, 24 AND 25 JUNE 1964 FIXING C.I.F . PRICES FOR SORGHUM ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, AGRICULTURAL SUPPLEMENT OF 1 JULY 1964, PP . 499 ET SEQ .);

P.207

THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION

THE CONTESTED DECISIONS ARE ADDRESSED TO THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY .

THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY PROVIDES THAT ANY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY INTITUTE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST A DECISION WHICH IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THAT PERSON, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THAT PERSON .

THE DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT PROVISION .

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

THE APPLICANT CLAIMS TO BE IN A SPECIAL SITUATION AS REGARDS THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTESTED DECISION, IN THAT NOT ONLY DOES IT BELONG TO A GROUP OF IMPORTERS AFFECTED BY THE SAID DECISION BUT ALSO THAT ITS REQUEST FOR AN IMPORT LICENCE, MADE ON 26 JUNE 1964, DISTINGUISHES IT FROM ALL OTHER IMPORTERS .

THIS CLAIM IS UNFOUNDED .

IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MEASURES SUCH AS THE CONTESTED DECISION THAT ITS EFFECTS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE LIMITED TO IMPORTS ALONE BUT EXTEND ALSO TO EXPORTS OF THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION, EITHER TO OTHER MEMBER STATES OR TO THIRD COUNTRIES .

MOREOVER, THE PURELY FORTUITOUS FACT THAT AFTER THE CONTESTED DECISION WAS MADE ONLY THE APPLICANT CONSIDERED IT ADVISABLE TO APPLY FOR AN IMPORT LICENCE ON THE DATE IN QUESTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DIFFERENTIATE IT FROM THE OTHER IMPORTERS AND TO DISTINGUISH IT INDIVIDUALLY AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY .

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CONTESTED DECISION CANNOT BE REGARDED AS OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .

THIS BEING SO, THE PRESENT APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .

UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

HAVING FAILED IN ITS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

THE COURT

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 38/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION .