Order of the Court of 4 March 1997. – Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.

BIB.ORDER

C-46/9661996O00460001.00011190111934CJ

ORDER OF 4.3.1997 — CASE C-46/96

GERMANY v COMMISSION

Order of the Court

4 March 1997^(*)

In Case C-46/96,

Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder, Ministerialrat, acting as Agent, Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft, D-53107 Bonn,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Anders Christian Jessen and Paul F. Nemitz, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of Decision C(95) 3319 final of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning fiscal aid to German undertakings in the field of depreciation,

THE COURT,

composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996, the Federal Republic of Germany brought an action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty for the annulment of Decision C(95) 3319 final of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning fiscal aid given to German undertakings in the form of a depreciation facility (hereinafter ‘the contested decision’).

2By document lodged on 18 March 1996, the Commission informed the Court that it had withdrawn the contested decision by the adoption of Decision 96/369/EC of 13 March 1996 concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form of a depreciation facility (OJ 1996 L 146, p. 42).

3According to the Commission, the contested decision contained errors arising out of inaccurate translation. As regards its content, the new decision of 13 March 1996 is nevertheless identical to the contested decision. The Commission requests the Court to declare that there is no need to give a decision in this case since the application has become devoid of purpose.

4By document lodged on 29 April 1996, the Federal Republic of Germany doubted whether the action brought against the first decision had really become devoid of purpose inasmuch as, according to the Commission, the second decision is substantially the same as the first. The need to bring a further action against the second decision hardly appears in its view to be consonant with the principle of economy of procedure.

5On 29 May 1996 the Federal Republic of Germany none the less brought an action against the Commission's second decision (Case C-182/96, pending).

6In the circumstances of the present case it must be held that, since the Commission has withdrawn the contested decision, the annulment of which is sought by the present action, the action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no need to give a decision in the present action.

Costs

7The German Government requests that, in the event that the original action has become devoid of purpose, the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs.

8Under Article 69(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to judgment, costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.

9Taking into account the fact that the Commission has, according to its own statements, withdrawn the contested decision on account of translation errors committed by its own staff, it appears appropriate to order it to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby orders:

1.There is no need to give a decision.
2.The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.