Order of the Court of 1 October 1997. – Regione Toscana v Commission of the European Communities.

BIB.ORDER

C-180/9761997O01800002.00015247152515CJ

ORDER OF 1. 10. 1997 — CASE C-180/97

REGIONE TOSCANA v COMMISSION

Order of the Court

1 October 1997^(*)

In Case C-180/97,

Regione Toscana, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de Vianden,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the annulment of, first, the note of the Commission (Directorate-General for Agriculture) No VI/040551 of 21 November 1994, second, the decision, which was never communicated to the applicant, in which the Commission withdrew the financial aid allocated under the Integrated Mediterranean Programme in respect of project No 88.20. IT.006.0 (supply of drinking water in Tuscany) and, finally, the note of 31 January 1997, in which the Commission informed it that the aid had been withdrawn,

THE COURT,

composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón, (Presidents of Chambers), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges,

Advocate General: CO. Lenz,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after hearing the Advocate General,

makes the following

Order

1By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 1 April 1997, the Regione Toscana brought an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty for the annulment of, first, the note of the Commission (Directorate-General for Agriculture) No VI/040551 of 21 November 1994, second, the decision, which was never communicated to the applicant, in which the Commission withdrew financial aid allocated under the Integrated Mediterranean Programme in respect of project No 88.20. IT.006.0 (supply of drinking water in Tuscany) and, finally, the note of 31 January 1997, in which the Commission informed it that the aid had been withdrawn.

2By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on the same day, registered as Case T-81/97, the Regione Toscana brought an action for the annulment of the same acts of the Commission, on the basis of the same article.

3The Court of Justice, through its Registrar, informed the applicant that it did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of actions brought by persons other than a Member State or a Community institution; despite having been informed of the order made in Case C-95/97 Région Wallonne v Commission [1997] ECR I-1787) on that point in a similar action, the applicant none the less persisted with its action before the Court. It claimed, inter alia, that in view of the legislative powers which the regions are recognized as having under the Italian constitution, they have, in the corresponding fields, the same capacity as a Member State.

4According to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘Where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court may, by reasoned order, after hearing the Advocate General and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action’.

5Under Article 173 of the Treaty the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to review the legality of the acts of the Community institutions referred to in that provision. However, it is clear from Article 168a of the EC Treaty and Article 3 of Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (OJ 1988 L 319, p. 1), as amended by Council Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 144, p. 21), itself amended by Council Decision 94/149/ECSC, EC of 7 March 1994 (OJ 1994 L 66, p. 29), that, since the entry into force of Decision 94/149, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is limited to actions brought by a Member State or by a Community institution.

6As the Court observed at paragraph 6 of the order in Region Wallonne v Commission, cited above, it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term Member State, for the purposes of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot include the governments of regions or of autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have. If the contrary were true, it would undermine the institutional balance provided for by the Treaties, which determine the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and the Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions. It is not possible for the European Communities to comprise a greater number of Member States than the number of States between which they were established.

7According to settled case-law, although it is for all the authorities of the Member States, whether it be the central authorities of the State or the authorities of a federated State, or other territorial authorities, to ensure observance of the rules of Community law within the sphere of their competence, it is not for the Community institutions to rule on the division of competences by the institutional rules proper to each Member State or on the obligations which may be imposed on the central authorities of the State and the other territorial authorities respectively (see, to this effect, Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraph 13). Thus an action whereby the Commission, under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, or a Member State, under Article 170, can seek a declaration from the Court of Justice that another Member State has failed to fulfil one of its obligations concerns only the government of the Member State in question, even if the failure to act is the result of the action or omission of the authorities of a federal State, a region or an autonomous community (see, in particular, specifically in relation to the Italian Republic, Case C-33/90 Commission v Italy [1991] ECR I-5987, paragraph 24).

8As the action by the Regione Toscana can therefore not be assimilated to an action by a Member State, or indeed by a Community institution, the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action.

9According to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EC Statute of the Court, ‘where the Court of Justice finds that an action falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, it shall refer that action to the Court of First Instance, whereupon that Court may not decline jurisdiction’.

10It is clear from Decision 88/591, as amended, that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction, inter alta, to take cognizance of actions brought by natural or legal persons under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

11In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the capacity of regions and other territorial authorities to bring proceedings (see, in particular, the order in Région Wallonne v Commission, cited above) the Regione Toscana must be considered to be a legal person for the purposes of that provision.

12As this action was brought by a legal person under that provision, this case falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and must, therefore, be referred to that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

hereby orders:

1.Case C-180/97 Regione Toscana v Commission is referred to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
2.Costs are reserved.