EUR-Lex -  61996TO0137 - EN - Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1996. - Valio Oy v Commission of the European Communities. - Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Common agricultural policy - Standards for spreadable fats - Prohibition of the use of reserved sales descriptions - Application - Division of powers between the Commission and the national authorities. - Case T-137/96 R.

Summary
Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Conditions of admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Not relevant - Limits - Main application seeking annulment of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission interpreting a provision of a regulation - Commission not having decision-making power because of the exclusive competence of the Member States to implement the provision in question - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1); Council Regulation No 2991/94)

Summary

In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures. It should be reserved for the examination of the main application, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case, unless it is apparent at first sight that the main action is manifestly inadmissible.

That is so in the case of an application for annulment of a `decision' contained in a letter from the Commission addressed to a Member State, relating to the interpretation of a provision of Regulation No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats, a provision whose implementation is within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In so far as neither the content nor the form nor the context of such a letter suggests a decision taken by the Commission in the exercise of its competence to adopt the detailed rules for the application of that regulation, the letter merely constitutes an opinion which is not binding on the national authorities, and cannot therefore be regarded as a decision capable of affecting the applicant's legal position. It is for the applicant, if the national authorities adopt the non-binding interpretation suggested by the Commission, to make use at the appropriate time of the remedies available in national law to challenge in the national courts the measures taken with respect to it, with the national court being able to refer, if appropriate, the question of the interpretation or validity of the regulation to the Court of Justice.

Since it is ancillary to a main application which is prima facie inadmissible, the application for suspension of operation of the `decision' contained in that letter must be dismissed.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy