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):		61993J0135
Název:
Title: 		Judgment of the Court of 29 June 1995.
Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities.
Action for annulment - Act adopted on the basis of Article 93 (1) of
the EEC Treaty - Extension - Admissibility.
Case C-135/93.
Publikace:
Publication:		European Court Reports 1995 page I-1651
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971] ECR 263
    · Case 218/82 Commission v Council [1983] ECR 4063
    · Klensch Case 202/85 Klensch v Secrétaire d’État [1986] ECR 3477
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
The case concerns a Community framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry adopted by the Commission under Article 93(1) of the Treaty.
This framework was first adopted in 1988.
Published as a communication (89/C 123/03) in OJ 1989 C 123, p. 3.
It provided for an obligation to notify various categories of aid, and for the communication by the Member States to the Commission of an annual report giving information of all aid granted, including aid not subject to the obligation of prior notification. The framework further states that the measures are to be valid for two years and that the Commission shall at the end of this period review the utility and scope of the framework.
In 1990, after review by the Commission, the framework was extended.
Published as a communication (91/C 81/05) in OJ 1991 C 81, p. 4.
The substance of the regulations was not altered. In the communication published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities
the Commission states that the framework shall be reviewed by the Commission after two years and that, if it appears necessary, it shall then be modified or repealed.
In 1992, the framework was extended anew.
Published as a communication (93/C 36/06) in OJ 1993 C 36, p. 17.
With this extension, the Commission expressed that the framework had not been modified and that it would remain valid ‘until the next review organized by the Commission’.
The Kingdom of Spain, taking the that the view that the framework was unlawful, or even non-existend, and therefore filed an action under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty asking the Court to annul the decision of 1992. It argued that this decision had been adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements, Article 190 of the Treaty and the principle of legal certainty. The illegality, in the view of the Kingdom of Spain, also affected the framework decided at the end of 1990, in so far as it was the basis for the decision in 1992.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court first examines the admissibility of the action under Article 173 of the Treaty. The third paragraph
Cf. now Article 173 paragraph 5 of the EC Treaty.
of that Article provides for a time limit of two months. While Spain had primarily challenged the 1992 decision, it had, in the view of the Court, also asked for annulment of the 1990 decision. This part of the action was inadmissible under Article 173 because the Kingdom of Spain had not brought its action within the time-limit. The Court, in particular, points out that the 1990 decision can neither be implicitly challenged in the present action as an earlier act of the same kind; to accept such a challenge would make it possible to circumvent the time-limit provided for in Article 173. Finally, the Court addresses the question whether after expiry of the time-period an action against the 1990 decision can be based on the consideration that it was inexistent because of “serious and manifest defects”. By addressing this issue, the Court indicates that it would, in principle, accept such an exception from the time-limit of Article 173. It, however, does not find in the documents any indication that the 1990 decision “is vitiated by an irregularity of such manifest seriousness that it could not be tolerated by the Community legal order”.
The Court goes on to examine the admissibility of the action against the 1992 decision. “[T]he Court has consistently held that an action for annulment must be available in the case of all measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their form, which are intended to have legal effect” ( Case 22/70). The Court therefore examines whether said decision had a “legal effect” upon the Kingdom of Spain. This had been denied by the Commission on the ground that the 1992 decision merely extended the 1990 decision. The Court takes a different view. It argues that, but for the 1992 decision, the framework would have expired in 1992.
With respect to the substance of the case, the Kingdom of Spain had argued that, contrary to Article 93(1) of the Treaty, the 1992 decision had extended the validity of the framework for an indefinite period without consulting the Member States, or indeed obtaining their consent. In fact, under Article 93(1) “the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, is to keep under constant review all systems of aid existing in those States. It is to propose to them any appropriate measure required by the progressive development or by the functioning of the common market. The provision thus involves an obligation of regular, periodic cooperation on the part of the Commission and the Member States, from which neither the Commission nor a Member State can release itself for an indefinite period depending on the unilateral will of them.” Were the 1992 decision to be understood as to extend the framework for an indefinite period, it would then have to be held incompatible with Article 93(1) of the Treaty. However, the Court, relying on its established case-law ( Case 218/92;
Klensch
), interprets the 1992 decision so as to be compatible with Article 93(1): “[W]here the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty rather than the interpretation which leads to its being incompatible with the Treaty. Consequently, even though the provision to the effect that the framework would remain valid until the following review organized by the Commission may appear ambiguous, it must be understood in a manner consistent with the Treaty provision it is intended to implement.” The Court therefore interprets the 1992 decision as to extend the framework until its next review, which, like the previous ones, had to take place at the end of a further period of two years.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):


Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):