Case T-144/04

Télévision française 1 SA (TF1)

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Action for annulment – Commission decision declaring certain measures taken by the French Republic in favour of France 2 and France 3 to be State aid compatible with the common market – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure – Inadmissibility)

Summary of the Order

1.      Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter

(Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 26(3))

2.      Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1))

1.      It is clear from the wording of the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC that the criterion of the date on which the applicant became aware of the measure as the start of the period for bringing an action is subsidiary to the criteria of publication or notification of the measure.

With regard to measures which, in accordance with the established practice of the institution concerned, are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, although such publication is not a condition of their applicability, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have recognised that the criterion of the day on which a measure came to the knowledge of an applicant was not applicable and that it was the date of publication which marked the starting point of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. In those circumstances, the third parties involved can legitimately expect the decision in question to be published.

With regard to measures which must, under Article 26(3) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC], be published on the Official Journal, the period for instituting proceedings starts, in accordance with the provisions of Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, from the end of the 14th day after publication thereof.

(see paras 18-22)

2.      Under Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must indicate the subject-matter of the proceedings and include a brief statement of the grounds relied on.

That indication must be sufficiently clear and precise so as to allow the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to decide the case, if necessary, without other supporting information.

In order to ensure legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of fact and law relied on appear coherently and intelligibly in the text of the application itself. Whilst specific points in this text can be supported and supplemented by references to specific passages in the documents attached, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot compensate for the lack of essential elements in the application. It is not for the Court of First Instance to seek and identify in the annexes the pleas and arguments on which it may consider the action to be based, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function.

Therefore, in reviewing the compliance of the application with the requirements of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the contents of the reply are, by definition, not relevant. In particular, the admissibility, permitted by case-law, of pleas and arguments put forward in the reply as amplifications of pleas in the application cannot be raised with the aim of compensating for a failure, arising during the initiation of the action, to comply with the requirements of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, without rendering the latter provision devoid of purpose.

Furthermore, whilst in the case of a measure adopted by an institution, the requirement to state reasons in the measure may indeed be eased where the addressee is familiar with the background to its adoption, that possibility of easing the requirement to state reasons may not be applied by analogy to the requirements of sufficient clarity and precision of applications lodged with the Community judicature. These requirements are necessary, in particular, for the benefit of the Community judicature, which has no prior knowledge of the case brought before it. Furthermore, in the interests of ensuring legal certainty with respect to defining the terms of the legal argument, and the sound administration of justice, presumed familiarity with the file on the part of the institution which drafted the measure cannot be taken into consideration as a ground for waiving the requirements of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 28-31)