- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 4 May 1998. # Bureau européen des unions des consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European Communities. # Antidumping procedure - Interested party - Refusal - Action for annulment - Confirmatory act - Time-limit - Inadmissibility. # Case T-84/97.
ECLI:EU:T:1998:81
61997TO0084
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Avis juridique important
61997B0084
European Court reports 1998 Page II-00795
Summary
Keywords
1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Concept - Measures producing binding legal effects - Letter from the Commission refusing an organisation for consumer protection access to non-confidential documents in an anti-dumping proceeding (EC Treaty, Art. 173)
2 Actions for annulment - Action contesting a decision confirming a decision which was not contested in good time - Inadmissible - Meaning of a confirmatory decision (EC Treaty, Art. 173)
Summary
1 Only measures with binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are capable of being the subject-matter of an application for annulment. The interests of a consumer protection organisation are prejudiced in a direct and immediate manner by a letter from the Commission informing it that it cannot be considered to be a party with an interest in the proceeding and, consequently, refusing it access to a non-confidential file.
In that context, the particular form in which acts and decisions are adopted is, in principle, immaterial so far as concerns the possibility of their being challenged by an action for annulment, and it is their substance which must be examined in order to determine whether they constitute measures within the meaning of Article 173. Where the decision in question contains a clear and definitive consideration of the request put to the Commission, the character of the decision cannot be called in question merely on the ground that the request was considered only by the Commission's staff.
2 An application for annulment brought against a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision which has not been challenged in good time is inadmissible. A decision is a mere confirmation of an earlier decision where it contains no new factors as compared with the earlier measure and is not preceded by any reexamination of the situation of the addressee of the earlier measure.