Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
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,
Subject of the case
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 .);
Grounds
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 .
Decision on costs
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 .
Endorsements
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE - RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE PARTIES;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE - GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE ANNEXED TO THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 69(2 );
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY ORDERS :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 38/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE ACTION .