Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered on 26 May 1988

1 Translated from the French.

2 87/373/EEC, OJ L 197, 18.7.1987, p. 33.

3 OJ C 283, 10.11.1986, p. 85.

4 Judgment of 12 May 1964 in Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrman and Krier [1964] ECR 195; judgment of 15 September 1981 in Case 208/80 Lord Bruce of Donington v Aspden [1981] ECR 2205; judgment of 10 July 1986 in Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure [1986] ECR 2391; Case 131/87 Commission v Council, pending before the Court, see order of 30 September 1987.

5 Case 138/79 Roquette Frires SA v Council [1980] ECR 3333 and Case 139/79 Maizena GmbH v Council [1980] ECR 3393.

6 The Parliament intervened in Joined Cases 281, 283 to 285 and 287/85 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission (Migration policy — Competence of the Community), in which judgment was delivered on 9 July 1987, [1987] ECR 3203, and in Cases 131/87 and 16/88 Commission v Council, judgments of 16 November 1989 and of 24 October 1989, not yet published.

7 Case 13/83 Parliament v Council [1985] ECR 1513, at p. 1556.

8 The Parliament has brought another action against the Council for failure to act in Case 377/87, judgment of 12 July 1988, ECR 4017.

9 Judgment of 10 July 1986 in Case 270/84 Assunta Licata v Economic and Social Committee [1986] ECR 2305; judgment of 10 July 1986 in Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure, cited above, [1986] ECR 2391; judgment of 15 January 1987 in Case 152/85 Missetv Council[1987] ECR 223.

10 Judgment in Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrman and in Case 208/80 Lord Bruce of Donnington v Aspden, cited above; Case 20/85 Roviello v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben, judgment of 7 June 1988, ECR 2805. Under the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, only the parties, the Member States, the Commission and, where appropriate, the Council, shall be entitled to submit statemenu of case or written observations in proceedings for preliminary rulings.

11 Case 294/83 [1986] ECR 1339. That decision was confirmed by the order of 4 June 1986 in Case 78/85 Croup of the European Right v European Parliament [1986] ECR 1753 and by the judgment of 3 July 1986 in Case 34/86 Council v Parliament [1986] ECR 2155, concerning the budget.

12 It should be noted that in the two Cases 51/85 and 358/85 France v Parliament, which were joined by order of 8 July 1987, are currently pending before the Court.

13 G. Vandersanden and A. Barav: Contentieux communautaire, Brussels, E. Buylant, 1977, p. 304; R. Joliet: Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes, le contentieux, Faculté de droit, d'économie et de sciences sociales de Liège, 1981, p. 196.

14 G. Isaac: L'insertion du Parlement européen dans le système juridictionnel des Communautés européennes, in Annuaire français de droit international, 1986, p. 794, in particular at p. 797.

15 Cases 138 and 139/79 Roquette Frères and Maizena v Council, cited above, paragraph 19.

16 Case 13/83 European Parliament v Council, cited above, paragraph 17.

17 Article 4 (1) of the EEC Treaty.

18 Sec, for example, K. Lenaerts: La position du Parlement Européen devant la Cour de justice à la lumière de la position du Congrès américain devant le juge fedéral, a paper delivered at the Conference organized by the Institut d'études européennes of the Université libre de Bruxelles, 24 to 26 September 1987, on the subject: Le Parlement européen dans l'évolution institutionnelle, roneoed text, p. 10.

19 See, for example, J.-C. Masclet: Le Parlement européen devant ses juges, Revue du marché commun, 1983, p. 518, particularly at p. 521.

20 See, for example, the judgment of 8 March 1972 in Case 42/71 Nordgetreide GmbH & Co. KG v Commission [1972] ECR 105, at p. 110: 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. See G. Vandersanden and A. Barav: Contentieux communautaire, Brussels, Bruylant, 1977, p. 229 et seq.; R. Joliét: Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes, le contentieux, Faculté de droit, d'économie et de sciences sociales de Liège, 1981, p. 150. See also J. Mégret, W. Waelbroeck, J.-V. Louis, D. Vignes, J.-L. Dewost and G. Vandersanden: Le droit de ta Communauté économique européenne, Vol. 10: La Cour de justice, les actes des institutions, Book 1, éditions de l'université de Bruxelles, 1983, p. 171.

21 See G. Isaac, op. cit.: Annuaire français de droit international, 1986, p. 794 particularly at p. 809. Sec also similar remarks by M. Waelbroeck at the roundtable discussion organized by the Centre d'études internationales et européennes of tne Universitc Robert Schuman, Strasbourg, on 10 April 1987 on the subject: Le Parlement europeen et la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes, p. 24. It should also be noted that the other institution and the Member States, as privileged applicants, might bring an action before the Court in order to obtain a declaration that the institution which had previously been called upon to act by the Parliament had failed to do so. Article 175 of the Treaty does not require, at least expressly, that the applicant before the Court (at least the institutions and the Member States) should necessarily be the one which initially called on the institution to act.

22 Judgment of 18 November 1970 in Case 15/70 Chevalley v Commission [1970] ECR 975, at p. 979, paragraph 6.

23 Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1351.

24 Case 230/81 [1983] ECR 255, at p. 282, paragraph 17.

25 Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini in Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1349.

26 Cited above, paragraph 24.

27 Case 230/81, cited above, paragraph 20.

28 Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1365, paragraph 24.

29 Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1366, paragraph 25.

30 Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1365, paragraph 23.

31 Judgment of 31 March 1971 in Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263, at p. 276, paragraph 39. Part of that paragraph was included in paragraph 24 of the judgment in Les Verts.

32 Case 22/70, cited above, at p. 277, paragraph 41. In another context, in order to reject the argument that decisions addressed to the Member States cannot be the subject of an action for annulment brought by an individual, the Court had already decided, inter alia, in the judgment of 15 July 1963 in Case 25/62 Plaumann 6 Co. v Commission [1963] ECR 95, at p. 107, that, moreover provisions of the Treaty regarding the right of interested parties to bring an action must not be interpreted restrictively.

33 Case 294/83, cited above, at p. 1365, paragraph 23.

34 Judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 [1987] ECR 4199, paragraph 16.

35 Resolution of 20 March 1958, Journal Officiel 1, 20.4.1958, p. 6.

36 Resolution of 30 March 1962, Journal Officiel 31, 26.4.1962, p. 1045.

37 OJ L 169, 29.6.1987.

38 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, adopted on 20 September 1976, OJ L 278, 8.10.1976.

39 OJ C 89,22.4.1975.

40 OJ C 194, 28.7.1982.

41 Bulletin of the European Communities No 6-1983, p. 26.

42 Minutes of the Council of 24 and 25 February 1964, p. 26.

43 Memorandum of the Council of 15 October 1973.