ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
29 November 2007(*)
(Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Manifest inadmissibility – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)
In Case T-250/07,
İŞÇİ Partisi (Turkish Labor Party), established in Ankara (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner, lawyer,
applicant,
v
French Republic,
Commission of the European Communities,
Council of the European Union
defendants,
ACTION brought against the alleged violation by the French Republic of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Additional Protocols, by maintaining restrictions to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, through the introduction of visa requirements affecting Turkish nationals entering its territory,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. D. Cooke and I. Labucka, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Facts and procedure
1 By letter dated 20 September 2004, the Directorate General of Justice and Home Affairs of the European Commission (‘the Commission’) replied to a letter sent by the applicant and addressed to the Commission’s President, concerning the implementation of the right of free movement and the compatibility of the visa regime applied to Turkish citizens by certain Member States with the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Additional Protocols (‘the Ankara Agreement’), as follows:
‘As Community law stands at present, the provisions concerning the Association between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Turkey do not encroach upon the competence retained by the Member States to regulate both the entry into their territories of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up first employment, but merely regulate the situation of Turkish workers who are already lawfully integrated into the host Member State as a result of lawful employment over a certain period. Accordingly, I am of the view that the visa regime currently applied to Turkish citizens is compatible with the Association Agreement.’
2 By letter dated 19 October 2004, the Council of the European Union replied to two letters sent by the applicant, informing it that ‘according to the applicable EC legislation (Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001), Turkish nationals are subject to a visa requirement when entering the Community. Moreover the responsibility for handling visa applications rests with individual Member Sates.’
3 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 16 July 2007, the applicant brought the present action.
Form of order sought by the applicant
4 The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
– cancel the visa restriction against Turkish citizens;
– order the Republic of Turkey to intervene in this case in support of the form of order sought by the applicant;
– order the defendants to pay the costs.
Law
5 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where it is clear that the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action or where the action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court of First Instance may give a decision on the action by reasoned order, without taking further steps in the proceedings.
6 In the present case, the Court of First Instance considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and decides, pursuant to that article, to give a decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
7 Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, and Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure, an application must, inter alia, contain the subject-matter of the dispute, the form of order sought and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. That information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of fact and law on which it is based must be stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (orders in Case T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, paragraph 20, and Case T‑154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑1703, paragraph 49, and Case T‑277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [1999] ECR II‑1825, paragraph 29).
8 In the present case, the applicant contests the legality of the visa regime introduced by the French Republic to regulate the entry of Turkish citizens to its territory. The applicant mentions in paragraph 30 of its application the reply given to its letter by the Commission, confirming that the national visa restrictions applied by Member States are compatible with the Ankara Agreement. In addition, the applicant refers in paragraph 31 of its application, to the letter it received from the Council informing the applicant of the Community legislation applicable to this matter and stating that the responsibility for its implementation rests with the Member States.
9 The application contains neither the subject matter of the dispute, nor the pleas in law on which it is based. The form of order sought does not permit the legal basis for the application to be identified.
10 Indeed, insofar as the action is directed against the Commission, it is impossible to identify whether it is an application for annulment of the Commission’s letter, brought on the basis of Article 230(4) EC, an application for failure to initiate infringement proceedings against French Republic on the basis of Article 226 EC, or an application for failure to act on the basis of Article 232 EC.
11 Moreover, in so far as the Commission and the Council are concerned, the application fails to specify any challengable measure, conduct or omission which could form the subject matter of the application.
12 Consequently, the application does not meet the minimum requirements laid down by Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure.
13 It follows that the present action must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and it is not necessary to serve it on the defendant.
14 Furthermore, insofar as the alleged unlawful conduct of the French Republic is concerned, it should be noted that the Court of First Instance has no power under Article 230 EC to assume the role of national authorities responsible for the implementation of Community law.
15 The powers of the Court of First Instance are those set out in Article 225 EC and Article 140a EA, as specified in Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Under those provisions, the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction only in actions brought under Article 230 EC or Article 146 EA against Community institutions and organs established by the Treaties or by acts adopted for their application.
16 In the present case, it is apparent that the alleged author of the impugned conduct in question is neither an institution nor an organ of the Community, but rather a national authority.
17 Consequently, the action brought against the French Republic, must be declared inadmissible for manifest lack of jurisdiction.
18 Finally, as the substantiate action is manifestly inadmissible, there is non need to rule on the claim for an order directing the Republic of Turkey to intervene in the proceeding.
Costs
19 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 those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. İŞÇİ Partisi (Turkish Labor Party) shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 29 November 2007.