Parties
|
|
In Case C-107/95 P,
|
I sag C-107/95 P,
|
|
Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV, an association governed by German law, established in Bonn (Germany), represented by Joachim Müller, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire,
|
Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV, Bonn (Tyskland), ved advokat Joachim Mueller, Muenchen, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg hos advokat Arsène Kronshagen, 12, boulevard de la Foire,
|
|
appellant,
|
appellant,
|
|
APPEAL against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 Bilanzbuchhalter v Commission [1995] ECR II-101, seeking to have that order set aside,
|
angaaende appel af kendelse afsagt den 23. januar 1995 af De Europaeiske Faellesskabers Ret i Foerste Instans (Fjerde Afdeling) i sag T-84/94, Bilanzbuchhalter mod Kommissionen (Sml. II, s. 101), hvori der er nedlagt paastand om ophaevelse af kendelsen, den anden part i appelsagen er: Kommissionen for De Europaeiske Faellesskaber ved juridisk konsulent Marie-José Jonczy og Norbert Lorenz, Kommissionens Juridiske Tjeneste, som befuldmaegtigede, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg hos Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Kommissionens Juridiske Tjeneste, Wagner-Centret, Kirchberg,
|
|
the other party to the proceedings being:
|
har
|
|
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Marie-José Jonczy, Legal Adviser, and Norbert Lorenz, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
|
DOMSTOLEN
|
|
THE COURT
|
(Femte Afdeling)
|
|
(Fifth Chamber),
|
sammensat af formanden for Foerste Afdeling, L. Sevón, som fungerende formand for Femte Afdeling (refererende dommer), og dommerne C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet og P. Jann,
|
|
composed of: L. Sevón, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges,
|
generaladvokat: A. La Pergola
|
|
Advocate General: A. La Pergola,
|
justitssekretaer: R. Grass,
|
|
Registrar: R. Grass,
|
paa grundlag af den refererende dommers rapport,
|
|
having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,
|
og efter at generaladvokaten har fremsat forslag til afgoerelse den 11. juli 1996,
|
|
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 July 1996,
|
afsagt foelgende
|
|
gives the following
|
Dom
|
|
Judgment
|
|
Grounds
|
|
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 31 March 1995, the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV (hereinafter `the appellant') brought an appeal, pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 Bilanzbuchhalter v Commission [1995] ECR II-101. By that order, the Court of First Instance declared inadmissible the action for annulment brought by the appellant against the decision of the Commission of 4 November 1993 not to take action on the complaint lodged by the appellant seeking a declaration that the Steuerberatungsgesetz of 4 November 1975 (Law on Tax Advice, BGBl. 1975 I, p. 2735, hereinafter `the StBerG') was contrary to Articles 59 and 86 of the EC Treaty and that, therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with those provisions, had infringed Articles 5 and 90 of the Treaty.
|
1 Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 31. marts 1995 har Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter eV (herefter »appellanten«) i medfoer af artikel 49 i EF-statutten for Domstolen ivaerksat appel af kendelse afsagt af De Europaeiske Faellesskabers Ret i Foerste Instans (Fjerde Afdeling) den 23. januar 1995, sag T-84/94, Bilanzbuchhalter mod Kommissionen (Sml. II, s. 101). I kendelsen afviste Retten et af appellanten anlagt annullationssoegsmaal til proevelse af Kommissionens beslutning af 4. november 1993 om at henlaegge appellantens klage, hvormed appellanten oenskede at faa fastslaaet, at Steuerberatungsgesetz af 4. november 1975 (lov om skatteraadgivning, BGBl. 1975 I, s. 2735, herefter »StBerG«) er i strid med EF-traktatens artikel 59 og 86, og at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland derfor har tilsidesat traktatens artikel 5 og 90, idet den ikke har truffet de noedvendige foranstaltninger med henblik paa at efterkomme disse bestemmelser.
|
|
2 It appears from the contested order that the appellant is a professional association governed by German law, established in order to defend the economic and socio-professional interests of accountants (paragraph 1).
|
2 Det fremgaar af den anfaegtede kendelse, at appellanten er en tysk forening, hvis formaal er at varetage medlemmernes oekonomiske og erhvervspolitiske interesser (praemis 1).
|
|
3 On 21 August 1992 the appellant lodged a complaint with the Commission in which it called in question the StBerG, amended at various times, most recently by the Law of 13 December 1990 (BGBl. 1990 I, p. 2756), inasmuch as it reserves the right to pursue the activity of adviser on tax and related matters to tax advisers, auditors, lawyers and sworn accountants (paragraph 1).
|
3 Den 21. august 1992 indgav appellanten en klage til Kommissionen, hvori foreningen gjorde indsigelse mod StBerG, som senest aendret ved lov af 13. december 1990 (BGBl. 1990 I, s. 2756), idet »Steuerberater« (skatteraadgivere), »Wirtschaftspruefer« (»statsautoriserede revisorer«), advokater og »vereidigte Buchpruefer« (»registrerede revisorer«) efter denne lov har eneret til at udfoere visse former for skatteraadgivning og dermed forbundne opgaver (praemis 1).
|
|
4 Considering that legislation to be contrary to the provisions of the Treaty and, in particular, to Articles 59 and 86 thereof, the appellant complained that the Federal Republic of Germany, by failing to amend that legislation, had infringed the second paragraph of Article 5 and Article 90(1) and (2) of the Treaty. It therefore requested the Commission to ensure, pursuant to Article 155 of the Treaty, that the provisions of the Treaty were applied (paragraph 1).
|
4 Appellanten fandt, at denne lovgivning var i strid med traktatens bestemmelser, navnlig artikel 59 og 86, og gjorde gaeldende, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland ved ikke at aendre denne lovgivning tilsidesatte traktatens artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 90, stk. 1 og 2. Appellanten anmodede derfor Kommissionen om i overensstemmelse med traktatens artikel 155 at drage omsorg for gennemfoerelsen af traktatens bestemmelser (praemis 1).
|
|
5 On 4 November 1993 the Commission took the decision not to act on the applicant's complaint on the ground that the StBerG did not infringe Community law and informed it of that decision by letter of 13 December 1993 (paragraph 4).
|
5 Den 4. november 1993 besluttede Kommissionen ikke at fremme appellantens klage, idet StBerG ikke var i strid med faellesskabsretten, og orienterede ved skrivelse af 13. december 1993 appellanten herom (praemis 4).
|
|
6 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 February 1994, the applicant brought an action under Article 173 of the EC Treaty for the annulment of that decision on the ground that it infringed the combined provisions of Articles 5, 59, 86, 90(1) and 155 of the Treaty and Article 3 of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87) (paragraphs 5 and 8).
|
6 Appellanten anlagde ved staevning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 23. februar 1994 i medfoer af EF-traktatens artikel 173 sag med paastand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning under anbringende af, at den er i strid med traktatens artikel 5, artikel 59, artikel 86, artikel 90, stk. 1, samt artikel 155 og artikel 3 i Raadets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, foerste forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85 og 86 (EFT 1959-1962, s. 81) (praemis 5 og 8).
|
|
7 By a separate document lodged at the Registry on 4 May 1994, the Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance (paragraph 6).
|
7 Ved saerskilt dokument indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 4. maj 1994 nedlagde Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 114 i Rettens procesreglementet paastand om sagens afvisning (praemis 6).
|
|
The order of the Court of First Instance
|
Rettens kendelse
|
|
8 By the contested order the Court of First Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible, pursuant to Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure.
|
8 I den anfaegtede kendelse har Retten i medfoer af artikel 111 i sit procesreglement afvist sagen.
|
|
9 In the first place, the Court, at paragraph 22 of the contested order, interpreted the disputed decision as an expression of the Commission's intention not to commence proceedings under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against the Federal Republic of Germany.
|
9 For det foerste har Retten i praemis 22 i den anfaegtede kendelse anset Kommissionens beslutning om at henlaegge appellantens klage for et udtryk for, at Kommissionen ikke vil indlede en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169 mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
|
|
10 The Court of First Instance went on to observe, at paragraph 23, that the Court of Justice had consistently held that the Commission is not bound to commence proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty but enjoys a discretionary power which precludes any right on the part of individuals to require it to adopt a specific position (Case 247/87 Star Fruit v Commission [1989] ECR 291, paragraphs 10 to 14). It accordingly concluded that `in the context of proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, persons who have lodged a complaint do not have the possibility of bringing an action before the Community judicature against the decision of the Commission not to take action on their complaint'.
|
10 I praemis 23 har Retten henvist til Domstolens praksis, hvoraf fremgaar, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til at indlede en procedure i henhold til traktatens artikel 169, men at den i denne henseende har en skoensbefoejelse, hvilket indebaerer, at borgere ikke kan kraeve, at den indtager et bestemt standpunkt (dom af 14.2.1989, sag 247/87, Star Fruit mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 291, praemis 10-14). Retten har heraf udledt, at »Personer, som har indgivet en klage, [ikke] ... i forbindelse med en procedure i henhold til traktatens artikel 169 [har] mulighed for at indbringe Kommissionens beslutning om at henlaegge klagen for Faellesskabets retsinstanser.«
|
|
11 At paragraph 24, the Court therefore held that `in the present case, it is not open to the applicant to challenge a refusal by the Commission to commence proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany' and referred, in this regard, to the orders of the Court of Justice in Case C-29/92 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1992] ECR I-3935, paragraph 21, and of the Court of First Instance in Case T-29/93 Calvo Alonso-Cortés v Commission [1993] ECR II-1389, paragraph 55, and in Case T-5/94 J v Commission [1994] ECR II-391, paragraph 15.
|
11 Retten har derfor fastslaaet i praemis 24, at »sagsoegeren i denne sag ikke har kompetence til at anfaegte Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland« og har til stoette herfor henvist til Domstolens kendelse af 12. juni 1992 (sag C-29/92, Asia Motor France m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 3935, praemis 21), og Rettens kendelse af 14. december 1993 (sag T-29/93, Calvo Alonso-Cortés mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1389, praemis 55) og af 27. maj 1994 (sag T-5/94, J. mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 391, praemis 15).
|
|
12 Secondly, in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the contested order, the Court of First Instance examined the admissibility of the action against the Commission's decision not to take any action on the applicant's complaint in case that decision was to be regarded as a refusal to take a decision under Article 90(3) of the Treaty.
|
12 For det andet har Retten i praemis 27 og 28 i den anfaegtede kendelse undersoegt, om sagen til proevelse af Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at fremme appellantens klage kan antages til realitetsbehandling, hvis beslutningen anses for et afslag paa at traeffe en beslutning i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3.
|
|
13 In this regard, the Court considered, at paragraph 31, that it was apparent from Article 90(3) and the scheme of Article 90 as a whole, that the power of supervision of the Commission with regard to Member States which are responsible for infringements of the rules of the Treaty, in particular those relating to competition (judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-48/90 and C-66/90 Netherlands and Others v Commission [1992] ECR I-565, paragraph 32), necessarily implied a wide margin of discretion for that institution. Consequently, the Court considered that the exercise of the power to assess the compatibility of State measures with the Treaty rules, conferred by Article 90(3) of the Treaty, was not coupled with an obligation on the part of the Commission to take action (judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-32/93 Ladbroke Racing v Commission [1994] ECR II-1015, paragraphs 36, 37 and 38), so that `legal and natural persons who request the Commission to act under Article 90(3) do not have the right to bring an action against a decision of the Commission refusing to use powers conferred upon it under Article 90(3)'.
|
13 Retten har i denne forbindelse udtalt i praemis 31, at det fremgaar af bestemmelserne i artikel 90, stk. 3, og af den maade, hvorpaa bestemmelserne i denne artikel er opbygget, at den kontrolfunktion, som er paalagt Kommissionen i forhold til de medlemsstater, som er ansvarlige for en overtraedelse af traktatens bestemmelser, bl.a. vedroerende konkurrence (Domstolens dom af 12.2.1992, forenede sager C-48/90 og C-66/90, Nederlandene m.fl. mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 565, praemis 32), noedvendigvis indebaerer, at der indroemmes Kommissionen et vidt skoen. Retten har derfor fastslaaet, at Kommissionen ikke i forbindelse med udoevelsen af skoennet i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3, over foreneligheden af de statslige foranstaltninger med traktatens bestemmelser har nogen forpligtelse til at gribe ind (Rettens dom af 27.10.1994, sag T-32/93, Ladbroke mod Kommissionen, Sml. II, s. 1015, praemis 36, 37 og 38), saaledes at »De fysiske og juridiske personer, som anmoder Kommissionen om at skride ind i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 3, ... ikke [kan] anlaegge sag til proevelse af Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at goere brug af den kompetence, den har i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 3.«
|
|
14 In view of the foregoing, the Court held, at paragraph 32, that `the applicant cannot challenge the Commission's refusal to address a directive or a decision to the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 90(3) of the Treaty'.
|
14 Paa denne baggrund har Retten i praemis 32 fastslaaet, at »Sagsoegeren ... ikke [kan] anfaegte Kommissionens afvisning af at meddele Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland et direktiv eller en beslutning i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3.«
|
|
The appeal
|
Appellen
|
|
15 By its appeal the appellant requests this Court to set aside the order of the Court of First Instance for infringement of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 5, 59, 86 and 90(1) and (3) thereof, and for misinterpretation of Articles 155 and 169 of that Treaty.
|
15 Under appelsagen har appellanten nedlagt paastand om, at Rettens kendelse ophaeves, idet den er i strid med EF-traktatens bestemmelser, navnlig artikel 5, artikel 59, artikel 86, artikel 90, stk. 1 og 3, og idet der er anlagt en forkert fortolkning af traktatens artikel 155 og 169.
|
|
16 The order of the Court of First Instance is contested for both treating the Commission's decision as a decision not to bring an action under Article 169 against the Federal Republic of Germany for failure to fulfil its obligations and interpreting it as a decision not to take measures under Article 90(3) of the Treaty.
|
16 Rettens kendelse anfaegtes, baade for saa vidt Kommissionens beslutning herved er anset for en beslutning om ikke at indlede en traktatbrudssag mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland i medfoer af traktatens artikel 169, og for saa vidt beslutningen er blevet fortolket som en beslutning om ikke at traeffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3.
|
|
The plea in law concerning Article 169 of the Treaty
|
Anbringendet vedroerende traktatens artikel 169
|
|
17 The appellant argues that the Court of First Instance did not take into consideration the Commission's misuse of its powers in (i) assessing the facts erroneously and (ii) failing to take action even when it had acknowledged, in the course of discussions between its representatives and the appellant, that there had been an infringement of Articles 59, 86 and 90 of the Treaty.
|
17 Appellanten har anfoert, at Retten ikke har taget hensyn til, at der foreligger magtfordrejning fra Kommissionens side dels, fordi de faktiske omstaendigheder er blevet vurderet forkert, dels, fordi Kommissionen har undladt at gribe ind, selv om den i droeftelserne mellem repraesentanter for Kommissionen og appellanten anerkendte, at der forelaa en overtraedelse af traktatens artikel 59, 86 og 90.
|
|
18 The appellant further argues that, where there is a manifest infringement of the Treaty, the Commission has no discretion in the matter so that it is obliged to initiate the Article 169 procedure. That rule must be applicable in the present case since the provisions of the StBerG patently infringe Article 59 of the Treaty.
|
18 Appellanten har endvidere anfoert, at naar der foreligger en aabenbar overtraedelse af traktaten, har Kommissionen ikke nogen skoensmargen og er derfor forpligtet til at indlede en procedure i henhold til artikel 169. Denne regel maa finde anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfaelde, idet bestemmelserne i StBerG klart er i strid med traktatens artikel 59.
|
|
19 In this regard, it is sufficient to state that the Court of First Instance correctly applied the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which it is not open to individuals to bring an action against a refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings under Article 169 against a Member State (see, in particular, Asia Motor France and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 21).
|
19 I denne forbindelse er det tilstraekkeligt at bemaerke, at Retten korrekt har anvendt Domstolens praksis, hvorefter borgerne ikke kan anfaegte en afvisning fra Kommissionens side af at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure mod en medlemsstat (jf. bl.a. ovennaevnte kendelse i sagen Asia Motor France m.fl. mod Kommissionen, praemis 21).
|
|
The plea in law concerning Article 90(3) of the Treaty
|
Anbringendet vedroerende traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3
|
|
20 As regards the application of Article 90(3), the appellant maintains that, even if the Commission does enjoy a discretion in assessing the appropriateness of taking action, its decision must be open to legal challenge where that discretion is exercised on the basis of an erroneous assessment of the facts or where, because the facts are so obvious, the scope for exercising it is reduced to nothing. By refusing to take action when Articles 59, 86 and 90 of the Treaty had been manifestly infringed, the Commission had therefore misused its powers.
|
20 For saa vidt angaar anvendelsen af artikel 90, stk. 3, har appellanten anfoert, at selv om Kommissionen har et skoen med hensyn til, om den vil gribe ind, maa dens beslutning kunne goeres til genstand for et soegsmaal, naar skoennet udoeves paa grundlag af en fejlagtig vurdering af de faktiske omstaendigheder, eller naar Kommissionen ikke laengere har nogen skoensmargen, fordi de faktiske omstaendigheder er aabenbare. Da Kommissionen afslog at gribe ind, selv om der forelaa en aabenbar overtraedelse af traktatens artikel 59, 86 og 90, var der tale om magtfordrejning.
|
|
21 The appellant concludes that, in refusing to find that the Commission's discretion has such limits, the Court of First Instance also infringed the Treaty.
|
21 Da Retten ikke har fastslaaet, at Kommissionens skoen paa denne maade er begraenset, har den ifoelge appellanten ligeledes tilsidesat traktaten.
|
|
22 The Commission, referring to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Ladbroke v Commission, cited above, paragraph 38, contends that Article 90(3) of the Treaty empowers it to take measures against a Member State, but does not require it to do so. Furthermore, like Article 169 of the Treaty, Article 90(3) does not enable individuals to bring an action against any refusal to take measures which they have requested to be taken.
|
22 Kommissionen har med henvisning til Rettens ovennaevnte dom i sagen Ladbroke mod Kommissionen, praemis 38, anfoert, at den ved traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3, bemyndiges til at traeffe foranstaltninger over for en medlemsstat, men den er ikke forpligtet hertil. Ligesom det er tilfaeldet med hensyn til traktatens artikel 169, har borgerne ikke efter artikel 90, stk. 3, ret til at anlaegge sag til proevelse af en eventuel beslutning fra Kommissionen om ikke at traeffe de oenskede foranstaltninger.
|
|
23 It should be observed that Article 90(3) of the Treaty requires the Commission to ensure that Member States comply with their obligations as regards the undertakings referred to in Article 90(1) and expressly empowers it to take action for that purpose by way of directives and decisions (judgment in Netherlands and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 25). The Commission is empowered to determine that a given State measure is incompatible with the rules of the Treaty and to indicate what measures the State to which a decision is addressed must adopt in order to comply with its obligations under Community law (judgment in Netherlands and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 28).
|
23 Det bemaerkes, at Kommissionen efter traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3, skal paase, at medlemsstaterne overholder de forpligtelser, som paahviler dem med hensyn til de i artikel 90, stk. 1, naevnte virksomheder, og bestemmelsen giver udtrykkeligt Kommissionen kompetence til at gribe ind i saa henseende ved hjaelp af direktiver og beslutninger (jf. ovennaevnte dom i sagen Nederlandene m.fl. mod Kommissionen, praemis 25). Kommissionen er derfor kompetent til at fastslaa, at en bestemt statslig foranstaltning er uforenelig med traktatens bestemmelser, og til at angive de foranstaltninger, som den stat, beslutningen er rettet til, skal traeffe for at opfylde de forpligtelser, der foelger af faellesskabsretten (jf. dommen i sagen Nederlandene m.fl. mod Kommissionen, praemis 28).
|
|
24 As is apparent from the judgment in Netherlands and Others v Commission, cited above, individuals may, in some circumstances, be entitled to bring an action for annulment, under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, against a decision of the Commission taken on the basis of Article 90(3) of the Treaty.
|
24 Som det fremgaar af dommen i sagen Nederlandene m.fl. mod Kommissionen, kan en borger efter omstaendighederne have ret til at anlaegge et annullationssoegsmaal i henhold til traktatens artikel 173, stk. 4, til proevelse af en beslutning, Kommissionen har truffet i medfoer af traktatens artikel 90, stk. 3.
|
|
25 The possibility cannot be ruled out that exceptional situations might exist where an individual or, possibly, an association constituted for the defence of the collective interests of a class of individuals has standing to bring proceedings against a refusal by the Commission to adopt a decision pursuant to its supervisory functions under Article 90(1) and (3).
|
25 Det kan ikke paa forhaand udelukkes, at en borger eller eventuelt en sammenslutning, der er oprettet med henblik paa at varetage en gruppe borgeres faelles interesser, i saerlige tilfaelde kan anlaegge sag til proevelse af et afslag fra Kommissionen paa at vedtage en beslutning som led i den kontrolfunktion, der er tillagt den i artikel 90, stk. 1 og 3.
|
|
26 In the present case, however, the appellant requested the Commission to address to the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant to Article 90(1) and (3), a decision declaring that a piece of general legislation, the StBerG, was contrary to the Treaty and indicating the measures which that State had to adopt in order to comply with its obligations under Community law. The decision challenged before the Court of First Instance was thus the refusal by the Commission to address such a decision to the Federal Republic of Germany.
|
26 I naervaerende sag har appellanten imidlertid anmodet Kommissionen om i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 1 og 3, at meddele Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland en beslutning, hvori det fastslaas, at en almengyldig retsakt, i dette tilfaelde StBerG, er i strid med traktaten, og hvori det angives, hvilke foranstaltninger Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland skal traeffe for at opfylde de forpligtelser, der stilles i faellesskabsretten. Den beslutning, der blev anfaegtet ved Retten, var saaledes Kommissionens afslag paa at meddele Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland en saadan beslutning.
|
|
27 In this regard, it is apparent from the wording of Article 90(3) and from the scheme of Article 90 as a whole that the Commission enjoys a wide discretion in the field covered by paragraphs 1 and 3, both in relation to the action which it considers necessary to be taken and in relation to the means appropriate for that purpose (see, to this effect, the judgment in Netherlands and Others v Commission, cited above, paragraph 27).
|
27 Det fremgaar af bestemmelserne i artikel 90, stk. 3, og af den maade, hvorpaa bestemmelserne i denne artikel er opbygget, at Kommissionen har et vidt skoen paa det af stk. 1 og 3 omfattede omraade, baade for saa vidt angaar de foranstaltninger, den finder noedvendige, og de midler, den i denne forbindelse finder hensigtsmaessige (jf. herved dommen i sagen Nederlandene m.fl. mod Kommissionen, praemis 27).
|
|
28 Moreover, an individual may not, by means of an action against the Commission's refusal to take a decision against a Member State under Article 90(1) and (3), indirectly compel that Member State to adopt legislation of general application.
|
28 Endvidere kan en borger ikke ved et soegsmaal til proevelse af Kommissionens afslag paa at traeffe en beslutning i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 1 og 3, over for en medlemsstat indirekte tvinge medlemsstaten til at vedtage en almengyldig retsakt.
|
|
29 It follows that the appellant was not entitled to challenge the refusal of the Commission to adopt the measure sought.
|
29 Appellanten kunne derfor ikke anfaegte Kommissionens afslag paa at vedtage den retsakt, appellanten oenskede.
|
|
30 The Court of First Instance was therefore right in also declaring the action to be inadmissible inasmuch as it was directed against the Commission's decision not to take any action under Article 90(1) and (3) of the Treaty.
|
30 Det maa paa denne baggrund fastslaas, at Retten med foeje ogsaa afviste sagen, for saa vidt den var rettet mod Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at traeffe foranstaltninger i henhold til traktatens artikel 90, stk. 1 og 3.
|
|
31 The appeal must therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
|
31 Appellen maa herefter forkastes i det hele.
|