Parties
Grounds
Operative part
Keywords
++++
Procedure - Allocation of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Proceedings instituted by a natural or legal person on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings and pending before the Court of First Instance - Proceedings for the annulment of the same act, but instituted by a Member State, pending before the Court of Justice - In the interest of the proper administration of justice for the Court of Justice to consider the arguments of the natural or legal person - Disclaimer of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance
(Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c); Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, third para.).
Parties
In Case T-42/91,
Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV and PTT Post BV, represented by M.C.E.J. Bronckers and P.V.F. Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 8 Rue Zithe,
applicants,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by J.H.J. Bourgeois, Principal Legal Adviser, B. Jansen and B.J. Drijber, members of its Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Guido Berardis, a member of the Commission' s Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
defendant,
supported by
Nederlandse Vereniging van Internationale Koeriers- en Expresbedrijven and Nationale Organisatie voor het Beropesgoederenvervoer Wegtransport, associations governed by Netherlands law, represented by M.J. Geus and I.G.F. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14A Rue des Bains,
European Express Organization, an association governed by French law, represented by R. Wojtek, of the Hamburg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Palinkas, 38 Rue Paul Wilwertz,
Association of European Express Carriers, an association governed by Belgian law, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14A Rue des Bains,
interveners,
APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 90/16/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning the provision in the Netherlands of express delivery services (Official Journal 1990 L 10, p. 47),
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),
composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça, President, R. Schintgen, D.A.O. Edward, H. Kirschner and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
Registrar: H. Jung,
makes the following
Order
Grounds
1 By order of 4 June 1991, the Court of Justice referred Case C-66/90, Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV and PTT Post BV v Commission [1991] ECR I-2723, to the Court of First Instance.
2 The case was registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance under No T-42/91.
3 In their application, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision 90/16/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning the provision in the Netherlands of express delivery services. That decision, which was adopted pursuant to Article 90(3) of the EEC Treaty, was addressed by the Commission to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The contested decision is also the subject of proceedings for annulment instituted by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-48/90 Netherlands v Commission).
4 In its order of 4 June 1991, the Court of Justice considered that since the proceedings were instituted against a Community institution by a legal person, under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, and concerned the implementation of the rules of competition applicable to undertakings, the proceedings brought in Case C-66/90 fell within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Official Journal 1989 L 319, p. 1)
5 According to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, where the Court of Justice finds that an action falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, it is to refer that action to the latter, whereupon that court may not decline jurisdiction.
6 According to the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, where the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance are seised of cases in which the same relief is sought, the same issue of interpretation is raised or the validity of the same act is called in question, the Court of First Instance may, after hearing the parties, stay the proceedings before it until such time as the Court of Justice has delivered judgment. However, where applications are made for the same act to be declared void, the Court of First Instance may also decline jurisdiction in order that the Court of Justice may rule on such applications.
7 Since the Court of Justice has decided, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, not to suspend the proceedings before it in Case C-48/90, the Court of First Instance must decide whether to suspend the proceedings in Case T-42/91 or to decline jurisdiction.
8 By letter from the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 1991, the parties to the proceedings and the interveners were requested to submit before 14 June 1991 their observations concerning the application of the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC. All the parties were in favour of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction, so as to enable the two cases to be heard simultaneously by the Court of Justice.
9 In this case, the applications before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance seek the annulment of the same act, namely the decision which the Commission addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands on 20 December 1989 pursuant to Article 90(3) of the EEC Treaty.
10 Since the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC precludes natural or legal persons from intervening in disputes between Member States and institutions of the Community, the only manner in which natural or legal persons can put forward their arguments in disputes which concern them is to bring an action themselves, in cases in which they have standing to do so, before the competent court.
11 Since the Court of Justice has decided not to suspend the proceedings before it in Case C-48/90, it is in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the court with jurisdiction to hear the proceedings instituted by a Member State should be able to take into consideration the various pleas in law and arguments relied upon by the natural or legal persons concerned in support of their applications for the annulment of the same act.
12 In this case, the mere suspension, until the Court of Justice delivers judgment, of the proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance would not enable the Court of Justice to examine the pleas in law and arguments relied upon by the applicants and by the various interveners in Case T-42/91 in relation to the contested decision.
13 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is necessary, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, for the Court of First Instance to decline jurisdiction in Case T-42/91 and to refer the file on the case to the Court of Justice in order to enable the latter to rule on the applications for annulment in both cases.
Operative part
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)
hereby orders as follows:
1. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-42/91, Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV and PTT Post BV v Commission of the European Communities, in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on the application for annulment;
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 21 June 1991.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy