C-59/79

PostanowienieTSUE1979-07-11CELEX: 61979CO0059ECLI:EU:C:1979:188

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy podmiot inny niż państwo członkowskie, który zwrócił się do Komisji o stwierdzenie niezgodności pomocy państwa ze wspólnym rynkiem w ramach procedury art. 93 ust. 2 Traktatu EWG, może wnieść skargę na bezczynność na podstawie art. 175 Traktatu, jeśli Komisja nie podejmie decyzji w ciągu dwóch miesięcy?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że żądanie skarżącego, aby Komisja stwierdziła niezgodność pomocy państwa, nie stanowiło „wezwania do działania” w rozumieniu art. 175 akapit drugi Traktatu EWG, ponieważ Komisja ma rozsądny termin na zakończenie procedury wszczętej na podstawie art. 93. Ponadto, żądanie to nie spełniało wymogów art. 175 akapit trzeci, gdyż nie miało na celu zobowiązania Komisji do skierowania aktu do samego skarżącego, lecz do podjęcia decyzji w sprawie pomocy państwa.

Stan faktyczny

Federacja nationale des producteurs de vins de table et vins de pays, będąca skarżącym, została wezwana przez Komisję do przedstawienia uwag w sprawie pomocy państwa, zgodnie z art. 93 ust. 2 Traktatu EWG. Po przedstawieniu uwag, federacja zwróciła się do Komisji o stwierdzenie niezgodności tej pomocy ze wspólnym rynkiem. Wobec braku odpowiedzi Komisji w ciągu dwóch miesięcy, federacja wniosła skargę na bezczynność.

Rozstrzygnięcie

1. Skarga zostaje oddalona jako niedopuszczalna. 2. Skarżący zostaje obciążony kosztami postępowania.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

Avis juridique important | 61979O0059 Order of the Court of 11 July 1979. - Fédération nationale des producteurs de vins de table et vins de pays v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 59/79. European Court reports 1979 Page 02425 Summary Parties Grounds Operative part Keywords ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS - NOTICE TO THE INSTITUTION TO ACT - REQUEST FOR ADOPTION OF A MEASURE - CONCEPTS - REQUEST FOR A FINDING THAT AID GRANTED BY A STATE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET - BAR - INADMISSIBILITY ( EEC TREATY , SECOND AND THIRD PARAGRAPHS OF ART . 175 ) Summary A PERSON OTHER THAN A MEMBER STATE WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN NOTICE BY THE COMMISSION , AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 93 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY , TO SUBMIT HIS COMMENTS ON AID CONTEMPLATED BY A MEMBER STATE AND WHO HAS AVAILED HIMSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST THE COMMISSION TO FIND THAT THE AID IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ), IS NOT ENTITLED TO BRING AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT IF THE COMMISSION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THAT REQUEST WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS . IN FACT SUCH A REQUEST ON THE ONE HAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ' ' INVITATION ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY SINCE THE COMMISSION HAS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE THE PROCEDURE INITIATED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 93 AND , ON THE OTHER HAND , DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 175 , SINCE IT IS NOT INTENDED TO REQUIRE THE COMMISSION TO ADDRESS AN ACT TO THE APPLICANT . Parties IN CASE 59/79 FEDERATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE VINS DE TABLE ET VINS DE PAYS V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Grounds ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , UNLESS THE COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDES OTHERWISE THE REMAINDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IS TO BE ORAL . THE COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS , FOR OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE AND IT HAS DECIDED , AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 91 ( 3 ), TO ADJUDICATE FORTHWITH UPON THE APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS . THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE . IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES TO INITIATE A PROCEDURE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 93 OF THE EEC TREATY IT HAS A REASONABLE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLETE THIS PROCEDURE . THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT AVAILED ITSELF OF THE OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED IT BY THE COMMISSION DURING THIS PROCEDURE TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED TO THE INSTITUTION ' S ' ' BEING CALLED UPON TO ACT ' ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 175 OF THE TREATY WHICH CAUSES THE PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE TO START TO RUN . FURTHERMORE IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON MAY COMPLAIN TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE , PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THE SAME ARTICLE , ONLY THAT AN INSTITUTION HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS TO THAT PERSON ANY ACT OTHER THAN A RECOMMENDATION OR AN OPINION . THE APPLICANT HAS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION AN APPLICATION WHICH FULFILS THOSE CONDITIONS . Operative part ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS : 1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE . . THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .