Avis juridique important

Judgment of the Court of 2 July 1964. - Glucoseries réunies v Commission of the European Economic Community. - Case 1-64. European Court reports French edition Page 00813 Dutch edition Page 00851 German edition Page 00885 Italian edition Page 00805 English special edition Page 00413 Danish special edition Page 00511 Greek special edition Page 01149 Portuguese special edition Page 00501

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

++++

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

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

CF . PARA . 4 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 25/62 .

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 .

IN CASE 1/64

SOCIETE ANONYME BELGE ' GLUCOSERIES REUNIES ' ( FORMERLY THE FIRMS BLIECK BROS . AND CALLEBAUT BROS .) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MOLENBEEK SAINT-JEAN ( BELGIUM, 49 RUE DE L'INTENDANT, REPRESENTED BY JACQUES DE GRAVE, ADVOCATE AT THE COUR D'APPEL, BRUSSELS, 56 AVENUE FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AT THE CHAMBERS OF E . ARENDT, AVOCAT-AVOUE, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, 23 AVENUE DE LA JOYEUSE-ENTREE IN BRUSSELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, MARC SOHIER, 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 THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 28 NOVEMBER 1963 AUTHORIZING THE LEVYING OF COUNTERVAILING CHARGES ON THE IMPORTATION INTO THE FRENCH REPUBLIC OF GLUCOSE ( DEXTROSE ) ORIGINATING FROM CERTAN MEMBER STATES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, 13 DECEMBER 1963 ),

ADMISSIBILITY

THE CONTESTED DECISION IS ADDRESSED TO MEMBER STATES . THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 PROVIDES THAT ANY NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY CONTEST A DECISION WHICH IS NOT ADDRESSED TO HIM ON CONDITION THAT IT IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO HIM .

THE DEFENDANT MAINTAINS THAT THE CONTESTED DECISION IS OF NEITHER DIRECT NOR INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS PROVISION .

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT MUST FIRST DECIDE WHETHER THIS SECOND CONDITION OF ADMISSIBILITY IS FULFILLED, SINCE IT WOULD BE SUPERFLUOUS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION IS OF DIRECT CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT IF IT IS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO HIM .

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 CERTAN 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 MAINTAINS THAT IT IS IN A SPECIAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTESTED DECISION, BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY BELGIAN UNDERTAKING WITH AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE MATTER AND BOTH WILLING AND ABLE TO EXPORT GLUCOSE FROM BELGIUM TO FRANCE IN SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES DURING THE PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF THE CONTESTED DECISION .

HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE EFFECTS OF THE DECISION ARE NOT LIMITED TO EXPORTS FROM BELGIUM TO FRANCE . CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION CANNOT THEREFORE BE RESTRICTED TO ITS EFFECT ON ONE EXPORTER IN ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES WHOSE EXPORTS TO FRANCE ARE CONCERNED, WITHOUT ARTIFICIALLY ISOLATING THE MARKET OF THIS STATE FROM THE REST OF THE COMMON MARKET, WHICH IS EQUALLY AFFECTED BY THE DECISION IN QUESTION .

BEARING IN MIND THE AIM OF THE DECISION, WHICH IS TO PROTECT A SECTOR OF THE FRENCH ECONOMY AGAINST COMPETITION FROM IMPORTS ORIGINATING IN OTHER MEMBER STATES, AND THE MACHINERY SET UP TO THIS END, THE CONTESTED DECISION IS INTENDED TO AFFECT IMPORTS OF GLUCOSE INTO FRANCE FROM THE WHOLE COMMUNITY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITALY BECAUSE THAT COUNTRY DOES NOT EXPORT ANY GLUCOSE TO FRANCE .

IN VIEW OF THE GENERAL ECONOMIC SCOPE OF THE CONTESTED DECISION, IT IS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT EVEN IF THE LATTER DOES OCCUPY THE POSITION WHICH IT CLAIMS ON THE BELGIAN MARKET IN RESPECT OF GLUCOSE EXPORTS TO FRANCE .

FOR THESE REASONS, THIS APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT IS INADMISSIBLE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE CONTESTED DECISION, SEEING THAT IT PRESUPPOSES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION SOME SUBSEQUENT ACT BY A MEMBER STATE, CAN BE OF CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .

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

THE APPLICANT HAVING FAILED IN ITS ACTION MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT N . 1/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .