JUDGMENT OF 8.3.1972 — CASE 42/71 NORDGETREIDE v COMMISSION

In Case 42/71

THE COURT, composed of: R. Lecourt, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and H. Kutscher, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Summary of the facts

II — Procedure

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties on the admissibility of the application

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Summary of the facts

II —. Procedure

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties on the admissibility of the application

(a). The main conclusion, based on Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, is inadmissible on the following grounds :

(b). The alternative conclusion, based on Article 175 of the EEC Treaty, is also inadmissible.

1. By application of 21 July 1971, the applicant has, under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, claimed annulment of the communication of 16 June 1971 in which the Commission refused to accede to its request, submitted on 26 May 1971 and confirmed on 4 June following, that goods referred to under heading 11.02 of the Common Customs Tariff, in particular flaked barley (subheading 11.02 E I(b) 1) and certain categories of maize groats and meal (subheading 11.02 A V(a) 1), should be included in the list of products contained in Annex I to Regulation No 1014/71 of the Commission of 17 May 1971 fixing the compensatory amounts provided for by Regulation No 974/71 of the Council on certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in agriculture following the temporary widening of the margins of fluctuation for the currencies of certain Member States (JO L 110, 1971, p. 10) and in Annex I to Regulation No 1272/71 of the Commission of 17 June 1971 altering the said compensatory amounts (JO L 133, 1971, p. 1).

2. In the alternative, the applicant claims under Article 175 of the EEC Treaty that the Court should find that the Commission has, in breach of the Treaty, failed to give a ruling on its request.

3. Since the Commission requested that Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure should be applied, the Court decided to rule on the admissibility of the action without going into the substance.

4. Since the Commission, within the time-limit fixed by Article 175, defined its position in its communication of 16 June 1971, the conditions for application of that article are not satisfied; the admissibility of the action must, in consequence, be considered in the light of Article 173 alone.

5. Since the definition by the Commission of its position amounts to a rejection it must be appraised in the light of the object of the request to which it constituted a reply. The object of the request was the inclusion in the annex to Regulations Nos 1014/71 and 1272/71 of the products of concern to the applicant; it accordingly sought amendment of a regulation by an act which would itself have taken the form of a regulation. In fact, inclusion in the annex to the regulations concerned of the products referred to by the applicant would have had the effect of applying the system of compensatory amounts to all exports and, furthermore, to all imports of the products involved to the advantage or the disadvantage, as the case may be, of any and every exporter or importer. Such a provision would have affected the applicant only in so far as it belongs to a category viewed in the abstract and in its entirety and not as the person to who an act of direct and individual concern to him was addressed. In consequence there is a want of the conditions to which under Article 173(2) proceedings by individuals against the acts of the institutions are subject.

6. The application must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings ; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the parties on the admissibility of the action ; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General on the admissibility of the action; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Articles 173 and 175; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 91 and 69, THE COURT hereby :

1 Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2 Orders the applicant to bear the costs of the action.