Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61991J0316

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 2 MARCH 1994. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT V COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. ACTION FOR ANNULMENT - PARLIAMENT - CONDITIONS GOVERNING ADMISSIBILITY - ACT OF THE COUNCIL - LOME CONVENTION - FINANCIAL REGULATION - LEGAL BASIS. CASE C-316/91.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1994 PAGES I-0625

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		EXTERNAL RELATIONS;AFRICAN CARIBBEAN AND PACIFIC STATES;BUDG;FINANCIAL PROVISIONS;PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS;EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		391X0491

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT MUST BE AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF ALL MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS, WHATEVER THEIR NATURE OR FORM, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTS, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ACT WAS ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTION PURSUANT TO TREATY PROVISIONS.

2. THE PARLIAMENT MAY BRING AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT AGAINST AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION PROVIDED THAT THE ACTION SEEKS ONLY TO SAFEGUARD ITS PREROGATIVES AND THAT IT IS FOUNDED ONLY ON SUBMISSIONS ALLEGING THEIR INFRINGEMENT. THAT CONDITION IS SATISFIED WHERE THE PARLIAMENT INDICATES IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PREROGATIVE TO BE SAFEGUARDED AND HOW THAT PREROGATIVE IS ALLEGEDLY INFRINGED. THE RIGHT TO BE CONSULTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PROVISION OF THE TREATY IS SUCH A PREROGATIVE. THE ADOPTION OF AN ACT ON A LEGAL BASIS WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR MANDATORY CONSULTATION IS LIABLE TO INFRINGE THAT PREROGATIVE, EVEN IF THERE HAS BEEN OPTIONAL CONSULTATION. PROPER CONSULTATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WHERE REQUIRED BY THE TREATY IS ONE OF THE MEANS ALLOWING IT TO PLAY AN ACTUAL PART IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY.

3. SINCE THE COMMUNITY' S COMPETENCE IN THE FIELD OF DEVELOPMENT AID IS NOT EXCLUSIVE, THE MEMBER STATES ARE ENTITLED TO ENTER INTO COMMITMENTS THEMSELVES VIS-ů-VIS NON-MEMBER STATES, EITHER COLLECTIVELY OR INDIVIDUALLY, OR EVEN JOINTLY WITH THE COMMUNITY. CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES OF THE ONE PART AND THE ACP STATES OF THE OTHER PART, THE FOURTH ACP-EEC LOMÉ CONVENTION ESTABLISHED AN ESSENTIALLY BILATERAL ACP-EEC COOPERATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF DEROGATIONS EXPRESSLY LAID DOWN IN THE CONVENTION, THE COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES AS PARTNERS OF THE ACP STATES ARE JOINTLY LIABLE TO THE LATTER FOR THE FULFILMENT OF EVERY OBLIGATION ARISING FROM THE COMMITMENTS UNDERTAKEN, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

4. COMPETENCE TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY' S FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 231 OF THE FOURTH ACP-EEC LOMÉ CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF THE FINANCIAL PROTOCOL TO THE CONVENTION IS SHARED BY THE COMMUNITY AND ITS MEMBER STATES; IT IS FOR THEM TO CHOOSE THE SOURCE AND METHODS OF FINANCING. THAT CHOICE WAS MADE BY INTERNAL AGREEMENT 91/401 ON THE FINANCING AND ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY AID UNDER THE FOURTH ACP-EEC CONVENTION, THE PROVISIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF A FINANCIAL REGULATION TO BE ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 32 THEREOF. ARTICLE 1 OF THE INTERNAL AGREEMENT PROVIDES THAT THE MEMBER STATES ARE TO SET UP A SEVENTH EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND AND SPECIFIES THE CONTRIBUTION OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO THAT FUND. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE EXPENDITURE NECESSARY FOR THE COMMUNITY' S FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS ASSUMED DIRECTLY BY THE MEMBER STATES. CONSEQUENTLY, THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT COMMUNITY EXPENDITURE WHICH MUST BE ENTERED IN THE COMMUNITY BUDGET AND TO WHICH ARTICLE 209 O
F THE TREATY MUST APPLY. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE ABOVEMENTIONED FINANCIAL REGULATION DID NOT HAVE TO BE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 209 AND THAT ITS ADOPTION ACCORDINGLY DID NOT REQUIRE MANDATORY CONSULTATION OF THE PARLIAMENT. NO COMPLAINT CAN THEREFORE BE MADE THAT THE COUNCIL INFRINGED THE LATTER' S PREROGATIVES IN UNDERTAKING ONLY AN OPTIONAL CONSULTATION.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):