ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth chamber)
1 December 2008 (*)
(Action for damages – Manifest inadmissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings)
In Case T‑219/08,
İşçi Partisi (Turkish Labour Party), established in Ankara (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities,
defendant,
APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey due to the failure to receive financial assistance under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Turkey and its Additional Protocols following the failure of the Commission to comply with its obligations under the abovementioned Agreement subsequent to vetoes exercised by the Hellenic Republic in the Council,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, I. Labucka and K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 13 June 2008, the applicant brought the present action in which it alleges that the Republic of Turkey was, on a number of occasions, denied financial assistance from the Communities and loans from the European Investment Bank under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 and its Additional Protocols (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1) (‘the Ankara Agreement’) as a result of vetoes from the Hellenic Republic in the Council of the European Union.
2 The applicant submits that the Hellenic Republic is bound by the Ankara Agreement and must fulfil the obligations arising from that agreement, including its financial obligations and that by opposing the financial assistance to the Republic of Turkey the Hellenic Republic unlawfully infringed the Ankara Agreement. The applicant submits that the Commission, following the vetoes of the Hellenic Republic, unlawfully failed to implement the Ankara Agreement and caused damage to the Republic of Turkey estimated at the amount of EUR 1 925 thousand million.
Form of order sought
3 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
– order payment to the Republic of Turkey of the following sums;
– the amount of EUR 1 925 thousand million;
– the credits, together with the interest pertaining thereto, that the Republic of Turkey allegedly should have received from the European Investment Bank;
– damages resulting from the non-payment of the aid and credits promised by the European Community;
– order the Republic of Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and the Council of the European Communities to intervene in this case;
– appoint an expert in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to determine and verify the damage and losses suffered by the Republic of Turkey;
– order the defendant to pay the costs.
Law
4 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may give a decision on the action, by reasoned order, without taking further steps in the proceedings.
5 In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to Article 111, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
6 By its application in the present case, the applicant seeks compensation from the Communities for the damage allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey resulting from a lack of financial assistance by reason of the inaction of the Commission following opposition to the assistance by the Hellenic Republic in the Council.
7 It is settled case-law that a person has the right to bring proceedings under Article 288 EC only where he is able to assert in law either a particular interest of his own or a right to compensation which has been assigned to him by others (see Case 238/78 Ireks-Arkady v Council and Commission [1979] ECR 2955, paragraph 5, and Case T‑149/96 Coldiretti and Others v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II‑3841, paragraphs 57 and 59).
8 In the present case, the applicant has not alleged any damage to its own interests for which it is claiming compensation, nor does it plead any assignment of rights or any express mandate authorising it to bring proceedings for compensation for losses allegedly suffered by the Republic of Turkey.
9 It follows that the applicant has not established that it has any interest in bringing proceedings in the present case.
10 In any event, it should be noted that the applicant does not state which measures the Commission has unlawfully failed to take. In fact, given that two of the three measures of financial assistance mentioned in the application (namely, the Special Action Programme and the Fourth Financial Protocol) were not approved due to the opposition of the Hellenic Republic, it is not clear which measures the Commission should have taken in order to implement the Ankara Agreement other than an action against the aforementioned Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations. In addition, even if it does not expressly submit that the Commission should have initiated proceedings against the Hellenic Republic, the applicant refers to the case-law concerning actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations (Case C‑61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I‑3989; Case C-239/03 Commission v France [2004] ECR I‑9325; and Case C‑349/03 Commission v United Kingdom [2005] ECR I‑7321) in order to establish that the Commission failed to act to ensure compliance with the Ankara Agreement.
11 In this respect, it should be noted that the Commission is not obliged to bring an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations in accordance with Article 226 EC. Accordingly, even if the position of the Hellenic Republic could be considered to constitute a failure on the part of that Member State to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty, the Commission’s failure to bring such an action does not, in any event, constitute an unlawful act, and accordingly cannot give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community (see order in Case T‑202/02 Makedoniko Metro and Mikhaniki v Commission [2004] ECR II‑181, paragraph 43, and the case-law cited).
12 Finally, it should be noted that the applicant does not mention any act or provision the wording of which would enable the Commission by itself to implement the financial assistance measures without the prior adoption by the Council of supplementary measures. In this respect, it should be noted that it is clear from the judgment in Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 16, that, unlike Decision No 2/80 of the Association Council at issue in Case 30/88 Greece v Commission [1989] ECR 3711, the Ankara Agreement is characterised by the fact that, in general, it sets out the aims of the association and lays down guidelines for the attainment of those aims without itself establishing the detailed rules for doing so.
13 It follows that the present application must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without it being necessary to serve it on the defendant.
14 Accordingly, there is no need to rule on the requests that the Republic of Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and the Council be ordered to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant or that an expert’s report be obtained in accordance with Article 70 of the Rules of Procedure.
Costs
15 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On these grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1) The action is dismissed.
2) İşçi Partisi (Turkish Labour Party) shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 1 December 2008