EUR-Lex -  61998TO0022 - EN - Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 1998. - Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd v Commission of the European Communities. - Common agricultural policy - Raspberries intended for processing - Flat-rate grant to producers' organisations - Recovery of sums paid - Act against which no action lies - Legal effects - Application for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-22/98.

Summary
Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Commission letter rejecting an application for amendment of a provision of a regulation specifying the quantities to be taken into account for the grant of Community aid - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 1991/92; Commission Regulation No 2252/92)

Summary

The action brought by an organisation of growers of raspberries for processing (a recognised producers' organisation pursuant to Regulation No 1991/92) for annulment of the Commission decision expressed in a letter refusing to accede to a request for, essentially, amendment of Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 fixing the volume of produce marketed to be taken into consideration for the purposes of granting the flat-rate aid to recognised producers' organisations is inadmissible.

Only measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. The letter at issue is not such a measure, since the obligation to repay - incumbent upon the applicant because it had been advanced start-up aid in excess of the definitive amount of such aid calculated in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 - was a consequence of applying the rules in force. The fact that as a result of an informal decision the competent national authority did not take action to recover the debt, pending the Commission's adoption of a position, does not mean that the applicant's legal position in relation to the debt depended on the Commission's response to the request for amendment of the rules at issue.

Moreover, an action brought by a natural or legal person against a refusal by the Commission to rectify a measure retoactively will be inadmissible if the rectification requested would have had to be adopted in the form of a generally applicable regulation, as in the case of an amendment of Article 6 above, which provides for the grant of aid on the basis of an objective situation.

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy