Avis juridique important

61990O0285

European Court reports 1991 Page I-00787

Summary

Since no provision of the EEC Treaty provides for the possibility for a natural or legal person to bring before the Court an action directed against a Member State and seeking to have judgments delivered by national courts set aside, it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear such an action.

Parties

In Case C-285/90,

Konstantinos Tsitouras, Georgios Kalikas and Georgios Lappas, residing in Piraeus, represented by G. Davakis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the premises of Elias Kypreos, 57-59 rue A. Meyer,

applicants,

Hellenic Republic,

defendant,

APPLICATION to set aside Judgment No 53/1989 of the Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio (Superior Special Court) and Judgment No 158/1989 of the Areios Pagos (Supreme Court) concerning the election in Greece of members of the European Parliament,

composed of O. Due, President, G. F. Mancini, T. F. O' Higgins, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias and M. Díez de Velasco (Presidents of Chambers), Sir Gordon Slynn, C. N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, F. A. Schockweiler, F. Grévisse, M. Zuleeg and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges,

Advocate General: C. O. Lenz

Registrar: J.-G. Giraud

after hearing the views of the Advocate General,

makes the following

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 18 September 1990, the applicants brought an action against the Hellenic Republic seeking in substance, to have Judgment No 53/1989 of the Anotato Eidiko Dikastirio and Judgment No 158/1989 of the Areios Pagos set aside.

2 The judgments in question were delivered in proceedings between the applicants, who were candidates of the Vasilofronon Ethinikon Agoniston party in the election in Greece of members of the European Parliament, and the Greek authorities concerning the prohibition imposed upon the applicants of using the term "Vasilofronon" in the name of their party.

3 Under Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure "Where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an application lodged with it in pursuance of Article 38(1), the Court may by reasoned order declare the application inadmissible. Such a decision may be adopted even before the application has been served on the party against whom it is made".

4 No provision in the EEC Treaty provides for the possibility for a natural or legal person to bring before the Court an action directed against a Member State and seeking to have judgments delivered by national courts set aside.

5 Since it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction in the present case, it must be declared pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, even before the application has been served on the party against whom it is made, that the application is inadmissible.

6 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicants have failed in their submissions they must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

hereby

(1) Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

(2) Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

Luxembourg, 27 February 1991