Avis juridique important

61993O0257(01)

European Court reports 1993 Page I-03917

Summary

Where the main action to which an application for interim measures attaches is dismissed as inadmissible, the latter application is itself inadmissible.

Parties

In Case C-257/93 R,

4. International Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., a company governed by Belgian law, established in Sint-Niklaas (Belgium),

represented by P. Vlaemminck and J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar (Belgium), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Diederich, 8 Rue Zithe,

applicants,

Council of the European Communities, represented by Mr Jacqué, Director of the Legal Service, Mr Brautigam and Mr Huber, Legal Advisers, and Mr Lo Monaco, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of X. Herlin, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,

The European Communities, represented by the Council of the European Communities and by the Commission of the European Communities, itself represented by P. Gilsdorf, Principal Legal Adviser, and T. Van Rijn, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Nicola Annecchino, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendants,

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking inter alia suspension of operation of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1),

makes the following

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 April 1993, Leon Van Parijs and six other companies in the banana sector brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for the annulment of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1) and under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for an order requiring the European Economic Community to make good the damage caused by the adoption of that regulation.

2 By a separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 9 June 1993, those undertakings also applied under Articles 185 and 186 of the EEC Treaty for the adoption of interim measures, first, to suspend the operation of Articles 18 and 19 of the aforementioned regulation, and secondly, to enable them to recover the share of the market held by them before 1 July 1993.

3 The Council and the Commission submitted their observations regarding the application for interim measures on 25 June 1993.

4 In accordance with Article 83(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an application to suspend the operation of any measure adopted by an institution or for the adoption of any other interim measures is admissible only if proceedings are brought before the Court in which the applicant is challenging the measure in respect of which suspension of operation is sought, or in a case to which the interim measures relate. An application to suspend the operation of a measure or for the adoption of interim measures cannot therefore be granted where the main action to which the application for interim measures attaches is inadmissible.

5 In this case, the Court has by order of 21 June 1993 dismissed the main action as inadmissible to the extent that it seeks the annulment of Regulation No 404/93 but has allowed it to proceed in so far as it seeks compensation from the Commission of the European Communities in respect of the damage caused by the adoption of that regulation.

6 However, since the application for interim measures attaches solely to the part of the action seeking the annulment of the regulation in question, it must likewise be dismissed as inadmissible.

Decision on costs

Costs

7 Since the action is allowed to proceed in so far as it is based on Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty, the costs must be reserved.

Operative part

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

Luxembourg, 6 July 1993.