JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition)
10 July 1997 (1)
(Anti-dumping Commission proposal to close an anti-dumping proceeding
without imposing protective measures Rejection by the Council Action for
annulment Action for failure to act)
In Case T-212/95,
Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento de España (Oficemen), an association
governed by the laws of Spain, established in Madrid, represented by Jaime
Folguera Crespo and Edurne Navarro Varona, of the Barcelona Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue
Guillaume,
supported by
Kingdom of Spain, represented initially by Gloria Calvo Díaz, subsequently by Luis
Pérez De Ayala Becerril, Abogados del Estado, of the Community Legal Affairs
Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented initially by Nicholas Kahn
and Francisco Enrique González-Diaz, subsequently by Nicholas Kahn and
Fernando Castillo De la Torre, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
APPLICATION, on the one hand, for annulment of the Commission's decision to
terminate de facto in February 1994 the anti-dumping proceeding initiated in April
1992 at the request of Oficemen, thereby refusing the protective measures
requested by that association, and, on the other hand, for a declaration that, by
formally maintaining the said anti-dumping procedure open without adopting
measures enabling it formally to be terminated, possibly through the imposition of
protective measures, the Commission has failed to act,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C.P. Briët, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J.D.
Cooke, Judges,
Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 February
1997,
gives the following
Judgment
The legal background
- 1.
- At the material time, the rules applicable to dumping were set out in Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or
subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic
Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1; hereinafter, 'the basic Regulation).
- 2.
- Article 5(1) of the basic Regulation provides that any natural or legal person, or
any association not having legal personality, acting on behalf of a Community
industry which considers itself injured or threatened by dumped or subsidized
imports may lodge a written complaint.
- 3.
- Article 7(1) provides that where, after a complaint has been lodged and
consultations have been held within the Advisory Committee, it is apparent that
there is sufficient evidence to justify initiating an anti-dumping proceeding, the
Commission shall immediately announce the initiation of a proceeding in the
Official Journal of the European Communities and commence an investigation,
covering both dumping or subsidization and injury resulting therefrom.
- 4.
- Article 7(9) provides:
'(a) An investigation shall be concluded either by its termination or by definitive
action. Conclusion should normally take place within one year of the
initiation of the proceeding.
(b) A proceeding shall be concluded either by the termination of the
investigation without the imposition of duties and without the acceptance of
undertakings or by the expiry or repeal of such duties or by the termination
of undertakings ....
- 5.
- Article 9, on termination of proceedings where protective measures are
unnecessary, provides:
'1. If ... protective measures are unnecessary, then, where no objection is raised
within the Advisory Committee ... the proceeding shall be terminated. In all other
cases, the Commission shall submit to the Council forthwith a report on the results
of the consultation, together with a proposal that the proceeding be terminated.
The proceeding shall stand terminated if, within one month, the Council, acting by
a qualified majority, has not decided otherwise.
2. The Commission shall inform any representatives of the country of origin
or export and the parties known to be concerned and shall announce the
termination in the Official Journal of the European Communities, setting forth its
basic conclusions and a summary of the reasons therefor.
Background to the dispute
- 6.
- Oficemen is an association governed by Spanish law which represents Spanish
cement producers.
- 7.
- In January 1992, Oficemen made a complaint to the Commission under Article 5(1)
of the basic Regulation on the ground that imports into Spain of certain Portland
cement originating in Turkey, Romania and Tunisia constituted dumping, thereby
causing material injury to the Spanish cement industry. In its complaint, it
requested the Commission to adopt protective measures in respect of the imports
in question.
- 8.
- The Commission subsequently decided to open an anti-dumping proceeding within
the meaning of Article 7 of the basic Regulation. The initiation of the proceeding
was announced in the Official Journal of 22 April 1992 (OJ 1992 C 100, p. 4).
- 9.
- In the context of that proceeding, the Commission opened an investigation, in the
course of which Oficemen submitted supplementary observations and took part in
a number of meetings with officials of the Commission.
- 10.
- By letter dated 15 October 1993, the Commission informed Oficemen that, in its
opinion, the condition set out in Article 4 of the basic Regulation as to the
existence of material injury was not fulfilled and that it therefore intended to
propose that the anti-dumping proceeding be terminated, in accordance with
Article 9 of the basic Regulation, without the imposition of protective measures.
- 11.
- By letter dated 13 January 1994, Oficemen informed the Member of the
Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, of its concern about the turn taken by the anti-dumping proceeding and of its fear that the proceeding would be terminated
without any protective measures being adopted, even though the Spanish cement
industry had recorded a definite decline in profits during the period in question.
- 12.
- On 1 February 1994, Sir Leon Brittan replied that the Commission would shortly
adopt a reasoned decision, but did not indicate which way the decision would go.
- 13.
- On 9 February 1994, the Commission sent the Advisory Committee a proposal that
the anti-dumping proceeding be terminated without the imposition of protective
measures, on the ground that the imports in question had not caused the Spanish
cement industry material injury within the meaning of Article 4 of the basic
Regulation.
- 14.
- As objections were raised about this proposal within the Advisory Committee, the
Commission submitted a report to the Council on the results of the consultations,
together with a proposal that the proceeding be terminated in accordance with
Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation.
- 15.
- On 7 March 1994, the Council unanimously decided to reject the Commission
proposal.
- 16.
- Following a suggestion by the Spanish authorities, the Commission contacted the
Turkish and Romanian authorities with a view to finding a solution acceptable to
all parties concerned. Those contacts did not produce any concrete result. As
Tunisia's market share was considered insignificant, the Commission did not contact
the authorities of that country.
- 17.
- Having received no information from the Commission concerning the status of the
proceeding since 1 February 1994, Oficemen sent a letter to the Commission on 25
July 1995 which included the following passage:
'In any event, more than three years have elapsed since the proceeding started and
the Commission has still not adopted any decision. As required by Article 7(9)(a)
of the [basic] Regulation, the Commission ought to have adopted a decision within
one year of initiating the proceeding.
For that reason, Oficemen formally requests the Commission to act and to adopt
a decision terminating the current proceeding and granting the protective measures
requested. It goes without saying that Oficemen intends to avail itself of the
judicial remedies open to it in the event that the Commission does not adopt a
decision within two months.
- 18.
- On 21 September 1995, the Commission replied by letter containing the following
passage:
'[t]he Commission did not fail to take a decision in this case as the investigation
was terminated by a decision based on the results of the case.
... In February 1994, it decided, in accordance with Article 9 of the [basic]
Regulation, to terminate the proceeding after finding that protective measures were
unnecessary on the ground, as stated in its decision, that the imports of the goods
in question had not caused material injury to the whole or virtually the whole of the
Spanish industry concerned within the meaning of Article 4 of the [basic]
Regulation ... The Council did not, however, agree that the file should be closed.
Since the Council gave its decision, the Commission, having Oficemen's interests
in mind, has continued to monitor the development of imports into Spain ... It
continued to do so even though the twelve-month period covered by the
investigation ended on 31 March 1992 and, after that date, the information relating
to imports did not appear to bear out new allegations of injury. On the contrary,
it confirmed the validity of the decision of the Commission, which is therefore not
at present in a position to modify its initial findings, as set out in its presentation
made to the Council in February 1994.
The Commission is obviously prepared to consider the possibility of initiating a new
anti-dumping proceeding if there is any up-to-date information capable of bearing
out the allegations that there has been dumping resulting in injury. Any new
complaint would be considered in the light of the Community provisions currently
in force, that is to say, in accordance with [Council] Regulation (EC) No 3283/94
[of 22 December 1994 on protection against dumped imports from countries not
members of the European Community (OJ 1994 L 349, p. 1)].
- 19.
- In a letter dated 29 September 1995, Oficemen, referring to the Commission's
letter of 21 September 1995, stated that it was not aware of the existence of the
decision by which the Commission had allegedly terminated the proceeding. It
therefore requested the Commission to forward that decision to it.
- 20.
- On 18 October 1995, the Commission replied by a letter which included the
following passage:
'Since the Council did not endorse the Commission's decision to close the file on
the case, the proceeding remains open in accordance with Article 9 of the [basic]
Regulation. The decision in question was moreover never published.
Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought by the parties
- 21.
- Oficemen brought these proceedings by application lodged at the Registry of the
Court of First Instance on 23 November 1995.
- 22.
- By order of the President of the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Court of 14 June 1996, the Kingdom of Spain was granted leave to intervene in
support of the form of order sought by the applicant.
- 23.
- Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) decided to open the oral procedure without any
preparatory measures of inquiry.
- 24.
- The parties presented oral argument and answered questions put by the Court at
the hearing held in open court on 4 February 1997.
- 25.
- Oficemen claims that the Court should:
annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty, the Commission's
decision of February 1994, by which it gave definitive effect to its proposal
that no protective measures should be taken against imports of cement
originating in Turkey, Romania and Tunisia;
declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty, that the Commission has
infringed Article 7(9)(a) of the basic Regulation by failing to adopt a
decision enabling the anti-dumping proceeding formally to be terminated
within a reasonable period;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
- 26.
- The Kingdom of Spain claims that the Court of First Instance should:
grant the form of order sought by the applicant;
order the Commission to pay the costs.
- 27.
- The Commission contends that the Court should:
dismiss the claim for annulment as inadmissible or, failing that, as
unfounded.
dismiss the claim for a declaration of failure to act as inadmissible or, failingthat, as unfounded and, in the alternative, hold that that claim has become
devoid of purpose;
order the applicant to pay the costs.
Events arising after proceedings were commenced
- 28.
- On 3 May 1996, the Commission sent to the Advisory Committee a new proposal
that the anti-dumping proceeding be terminated without the imposition of
protective measures.
- 29.
- As objections had been raised within the Advisory Committee about this proposal,
the Commission sent a report on 31 January 1997 to the Council on the results of
the consultation, together with its new proposal that the proceeding be terminated
in accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation.
- 30.
- The Council did not decide otherwise within one month of receiving that proposal.
As a result, the proposal became definitive by virtue of Article 9(1) of the basic
Regulation.
- 31.
- Commission Decision 97/169/EC of 30 January 1997 terminating the anti-dumping
proceeding concerning imports into Spain of certain Portland cement originating
in Rumania, Tunisia and Turkey was published in the Official Journal of 7 March
1997 (OJ 1997 L 67, p. 27).
- 32.
- By letter of 21 March 1997, addressed to the Registrar of the Court the
Commission informed the Court that that decision had been published in the
Official Journal. It stated that, since the claim for a declaration that the
Commission had failed to act no longer had any purpose, it was no longer
necessary to proceed to judgment on that claim.
- 33.
- At the invitation of the Registrar, Oficemen and the Kingdom of Spain lodged their
observations on that letter on 28 and 24 April 1997 respectively.
Admissibility of the application for annulment
Arguments of the parties
- 34.
- The Commission considers that the claim for annulment is inadmissible. It refers
to Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation and argues that a Commission proposal that
an anti-dumping proceeding be terminated without the imposition of protective
measures is merely a preliminary act, subject to subsequent approval either by the
Advisory Committee, if that committee agrees with the proposal, or by the Council,
if the Advisory Committee does not agree with the proposal. Moreover, if the
Council decides not to accept the Commission's proposal, the proceeding remains
open.
- 35.
- It would follow that in a case such as this, where the Council opposed a
Commission proposal to terminate an anti-dumping proceeding without the
imposition of protective measures, it is simply not possible for the Commission to
terminate the proceeding. Moreover, since such a proposal is a preparatory act it
cannot be regarded as being a decision against which an action will lie (Case 60/81
IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639; Case T-64/89 Automec v Commission [1990]
ECR II-367).
- 36.
- Oficemen argues that its claim for annulment relates to the Commission's decision
which, by refusing the protective measures requested, terminated de facto the anti-dumping proceeding initiated in April 1992 at the request of Oficemen. The
existence of that decision and its content are evidenced both by the Commission's
letter of 21 September 1995 and the inertia shown by the defendant since February
1994.
- 37.
- As regards the letter of 21 September 1995, Oficemen points out that the
Commission states therein that, in February 1994 'it decided ... to terminate the
proceeding, and that information subsequently obtained 'confirms the validity of
the Commission's decision. It observes, moreover, that in that letter, the
Commission states that it is 'prepared to consider the possibility of initiating a new
anti-dumping proceeding.
- 38.
- As far as the latter statement by the Commission is concerned, Oficemen notes that
the basic Regulation does not make any provision for simultaneously initiating a
second anti-dumping proceeding. The Commission could hardly, therefore, have
proposed initiating a new proceeding if it had not considered that the first had
been terminated.
- 39.
- In response to Oficemen's arguments, the Commission contends that it has cited
out of context the paragraph of its letter of 21 September 1995 in which the
Commission 'decided to terminate the proceeding. Furthermore, the applicant
has failed to take account of the content of the letter of 18 October 1995, which
shows clearly that the Commission's decision of February 1994 did not terminate
the proceeding. The wording of those letters does not, therefore, point to the
existence of a Commission decision terminating the proceeding.
- 40.
- The paragraph of the letter of 21 September 1995 according to which the
Commission was 'prepared to consider the possibility of initiating a new anti-dumping proceeding does not indicate that the (first) anti-dumping proceeding had
been terminated. In fact, there is nothing in the basic Regulation to prevent a new
complaint being lodged in respect of a reference period different from that under
investigation in the context of an anti-dumping proceeding initiated following an
(initial) complaint.
- 41.
- The Kingdom of Spain observes that, according to case-law, an action for
annulment may be brought against both internal instructions of an institution and
acts which, although in theory being one stage in a procedure, serve to terminate
it de facto before the time when a definitive decision should have been taken (IBM
v Commission, cited above, Case C-366/88 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-3571
and Case T-37/92 BEUC and NCC v Commission [1994] ECR II-289).
- 42.
- Furthermore, since the choice of form cannot change the nature of an act of an
institution, the fact that an act has an unusual form does not prevent an action for
annulment being brought, to the extent that the act did in fact have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties (Case T-3/93 Air France v Commission [1994] ECR II-121,
paragraph 58).
- 43.
- The Commission's letter of 21 September 1995 had characteristics such that it was
possible, in accordance with the case-law cited above, to identify an act which,
although purporting in its form to constitute part of the formalities of a proceeding,
amounts in fact, by virtue of its intrinsic content, to an act terminating de facto the
investigation. Given that the Commission failed to submit any new proposal to the
Council indicating its definitive intention, that act may be treated as an act
conclusively terminating the proceeding.
- 44.
- The intervener further submits that the Commission is endeavouring to block
Oficemen's access to the two remedies available to it. When the Commission
stated in its letter of 21 September 1995 that it 'did not fail to take a decision in
this case as the investigation was terminated by a decision, it was seeking to avoid
the risk of a ruling that it had failed to act within the meaning of Article 175 of the
Treaty. Conversely, when it changed its mind in its letter of 18 October 1995 by
declaring that the proceeding 'remains open, it was seeking to protect itself from
an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty by arguing that there was
still no definitive act against which an action might lie.
Findings of the Court
- 45.
- Article 173 of the Treaty makes it possible for individuals, under certain conditions,
to bring an action for annulment in order that the legality of acts of the institutions
may be reviewed by the Community court.
- 46.
- Before evaluating the admissibility of the application for annulment, it is first
necessary to consider whether there is an act against which an application for
annulment may lie.
- 47.
- It is apparent from Article 9 of the basic Regulation (quoted at paragraph 5 of this
judgment) that, as regards the termination of an anti-dumping proceeding without
the imposition of protective measures, the Community legislature intended to
establish a decision-making mechanism based on a power shared between the
Commission, on the one hand, and the Advisory Committee and the Council, on
the other.
- 48.
- Thus, when the Commission considers that an anti-dumping proceeding should be
terminated without the imposition of protective measures, it must submit a proposal
to this effect to the Advisory Committee. If no objection is raised on that
committee, the Commission's proposal becomes definitive and the proceeding is
terminated. The Commission then gives notice of the termination in the Official
Journal.
- 49.
- In the event that one or more members of the Advisory Committee raise an
objection to the proposal and if the Commission still considers it appropriate for
the anti-dumping proceeding to be terminated without the imposition of protective
measures, it must submit to the Council a report on the results of the consultation
together with a proposal that the proceeding be terminated. If, within one month,
the Council, acting by qualified majority, has not decided otherwise, the
Commission's proposal becomes definitive and the proceeding is terminated. The
Commission then announces the termination in the Official Journal.
- 50.
- If, however, a qualified majority of the Council disagrees with the Commission's
proposal and rejects it, the proceeding may not be terminated. In such a situation,
under the decision-making mechanism prescribed by Article 9 of the basic
Regulation, the case is referred back to the Commission for re-examination in the
light of the position adopted by the Council.
- 51.
- In its application in this case, Oficemen is seeking annulment of 'the Commission's
decision of February 1994 by which it gave definitive effect to its proposal that no
protective measures should be taken against imports of cement originating in
Turkey, Romania and Tunisia.
- 52.
- In so far as the applicant means by 'the Commission's decision of February 1994
the proposal to terminate the anti-dumping proceeding which the Commission
made to the Advisory Committee and to the Council in February 1994, it should
be pointed out that, under the decision-making mechanism set out in Article 9 of
the basic Regulation, as described above, such a proposal is an intermediate
measure, which is intended to prepare the final decision to terminate the anti-dumping proceeding.
- 53.
- According to case-law, in cases of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure
involving several stages, and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is
only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution
upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not
intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision (see, for
example, Joined Cases C-133/87 and C-150/87 Nashua Corporation and Others v
Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-719, paragraph 9; Joined Cases T-10/92,
T-11/92, T-12/92 and T-15/92 Cimenteries CBR and Others v Commission [1992]
ECR II-2667, paragraph 28).
- 54.
- It follows that the contested act as thus defined cannot be regarded as an act
against which an action will lie under Article 173 of the Treaty.
- 55.
- The claim for annulment must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.
- 56.
- At the hearing, counsel for the applicant explained, in response to a question from
the Court, that the act of which Oficemen is seeking annulment is the Commission's
confirmation of its initial view that the anti-dumping proceeding should be
terminated without the imposition of protective measures. This was an informal
decision taken at an undetermined date after the matter was referred back to the
Commission on 7 March 1994 and which was not communicated to the applicant,
at least not before September 1995.
- 57.
- In that respect, it should be noted that, after these proceedings were brought, the
Commission sent the Advisory Committee and the Council, on 3 May 1996 and 31
January 1997 respectively, a new proposal that the anti-dumping proceeding be
terminated without the imposition of protective measures. As the Council did not
decide otherwise within one month of receiving that proposal, the proposal became
Decision 97/169 definitively terminating the anti-dumping proceeding.
- 58.
- In the light of those circumstances, the Court considers that it is unnecessary to
rule on the question whether the 'informal decision referred to by the applicant
at the hearing could, in the context of the decision-making mechanism set out in
Article 9 of the basic Regulation, constitute a challengeable act.
The claim based on failure to act
Arguments of the parties
- 59.
- Oficemen raises a single plea in which it alleges that the Commission did not define
its position after it was called upon to act and did not take, within a reasonable
time, any of the steps which the basic Regulation requires it to take when the
Council rejects its proposal that the anti-dumping proceeding be terminated without
the imposition of protective measures.
- 60.
- According to the applicant, in such a situation the Commission should reconsider
its opinion, continue the investigation and present a new proposal enabling the anti-dumping proceeding to be terminated. It should not be able to avoid this
obligation. If it could, the Commission would be able to paralyse the proceeding
and deprive the parties concerned of any protection in that it would make itimpossible for them to seek review of the legality of the conduct of the institutions.
- 61.
- The Kingdom of Spain adds that, according to the basic Regulation, when the
Council rejects a proposal that an anti-dumping proceeding be terminated without
the imposition of protective measures, the Commission is required to submit a new
proposal to the Council.
- 62.
- It points out that the Council unanimously rejected the Commission's proposal that
the proceeding be terminated. It claims that the fact that an anti-dumping
proceeding was initiated in 1992 and the Commission has still not adopted in 1996
a decision enabling the Council to determine what measures it deems appropriate
clearly shows that the complainant is reduced to waiting for the situation to develop
of itself and that it is completely unable to exercise its rights. Such a situation is
the complete opposite of the one in which an institution can plead that there is no
obligation on it to act.
- 63.
- For its part, the Commission considers that the claim based on failure to act is
unfounded, in that it has not stopped acting since the Council rejected its proposal
that the anti-dumping proceeding should be terminated.
- 64.
- In its rejoinder, the defendant points out that, on 3 May 1996, it sent the Advisory
Committee a second proposal that the anti-dumping proceeding be terminated
without the imposition of protective measures. As a result, and in the alternative,
it contends that, since that proposal was sent, the claim alleging failure to act has
become unfounded in so far as, by the applicant's reasoning, the adoption of such
a preparatory act should be regarded as the definition of a position within the
meaning of Article 175 of the Treaty.
Findings of the Court
- 65.
- It appears, and it is not contested, that, at the time when this action was brought,
the claim based on failure to act was admissible. It is necessary, however, to
consider whether the defining of its position by the Commission in the course of the
proceedings has deprived that claim of its original purpose.
- 66.
- On 3 May 1996, that is to say after the action was brought, the Commission sent
the Advisory Committee a new proposal that the anti-dumping proceeding be
terminated without the imposition of protective measures.
- 67.
- Consequently, before judgment has been given, the Commission has duly defined
its position in response to Oficemen's call upon it to act, within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty.
- 68.
- In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance can only find that the claim
based on failure to act no longer has any purpose, with the result that there is no
longer any need to adjudicate on that claim.
Costs
Costs relating to the claim for annulment
- 69.
- Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, an unsuccessful party is to be
ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's
pleading. However, under Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may
order that the costs be shared, particularly where the circumstances are exceptional.
- 70.
- Here, the claim for annulment has been declared inadmissible. However, Oficemen
had brought it in the light, particularly, of the content of the letter of 21 September
1995, which was capable of suggesting that the Commission itself had decided to
terminate the anti-dumping proceeding.
- 71.
- In those circumstances, the Commission will be ordered to pay not only its own
costs, but also one-half of the costs incurred by Oficemen in connection with its
claim for annulment. Oficemen will bear the other half of those costs.
Costs relating to the claim based on failure to act
- 72.
- Under Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where a case does not proceed to
judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.
- 73.
- In this case, on the date on which it was called upon to act, that is to say 25 July
1995, more than 15 months had elapsed since the Council had referred the case
back to the Commission, but the Commission had not yet acted.
- 74.
- Furthermore, it was only on 3 May 1996, that is to say more than five months after
the action was brought, that the Commission acted by sending a new proposal that
the proceeding be terminated to the Advisory Committee.
- 75.
- In those circumstances, the Commission will be ordered to pay not only its own
costs, but also the costs incurred by Oficemen in connection with the claim for
failure to act.
Costs incurred by the Kingdom of Spain
- 76.
- Under Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure Member States which have
intervened in the proceedings are required to bear their own costs.
- 77.
- Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain must bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)
hereby:
1. Dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;
2. Declares that it is unnecessary to proceed to judgment on the claim alleging
failure to act;
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, to pay half of the costs
incurred by the applicant in connection with the claim for annulment and
the whole of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the
claim alleging failure to act;
4. Orders the applicant to bear half of the costs which it incurred in
connection with the claim for annulment;
5. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.
Vesterdorf Briët Lindh
Potocki Cooke
|
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 July 1997.
H. Jung
B. Vesterdorf
Registrar
President