Avis juridique important

61993O0107(01)

European Court reports 1993 Page I-04177

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-107/93 R,

Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Margarina (AEFMA), an association governed by Spanish law, established in Madrid, represented by Diego López Garrido, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Silvia López, 26 Rue du Curé,

applicant,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Francisco Santaolalla Gadea, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Nicola Annecchino, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3830/92 of 28 December 1992, relative to the suppression of customs duties and fixed components to trade between the Community of Ten and Spain and to the application by Spain of the duties from the Common Customs Tariff to trade with non-member countries from 1 January 1993 (OJ 1992 L 387, p. 46) in so far as it concerns the products falling under heading No 15.17 of the Common Customs Tariff,

makes the following

Grounds

1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 1993, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Margarina (AEFMA) brought an action under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3830/92 of 28 December 1992, relative to the suppression of customs duties and fixed components to trade between the Community of Ten and Spain and to the application by Spain of the duties from the Common Customs Tariff to trade with non-member countries from 1 January 1993 (OJ 1992 L 387, p. 46) was void, in so far as it concerns products falling under heading No 15.17 of the Common Customs Tariff.

2 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 24 March 1993, the applicant also sought the suspension of the operation of that regulation in so far as it concerns heading No 15.17, as an interim measure under Articles 185 and 186 of the EEC Treaty.

3 The Commission submitted observations on the application for interim measures on 30 April 1993.

4 In accordance with Article 83(1) of the Rules of Procedure, an application for suspension of the operation of an act of an institution or a request for interim measures is only admissible if the Court has before it either an application under which the applicant challenges the act whose suspension is requested or a case to which the interim measures relate. An application for suspension or for interim measures cannot therefore be granted if the main action on which the application for interim measures is based is inadmissible.

5 In this case the Court has, by order of 12 July 1993, dismissed the main action as inadmissible.

6 The request for interim measures is therefore also inadmissible and must be dismissed.

Decision on costs

Costs

7 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Operative part

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

2. The applicant shall bear the costs.

Luxembourg, 16 July 1993.