Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Jurisdiction of the Court ° Examination of the lawfulness of a national measure determining the terms of the contested Community measure ° Not included

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Agriculture ° Common agricultural policy ° Structural reform ° Common measures ° Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed ° Regulation No 355/77 ° Commission decision refusing aid from the EAGGF ° Validity not affected by irregularities relating to the opinion of the national authorities

(Council Regulation No 355/77, Art. 13(3))

3. Community law ° Principles ° Right to a legal remedy ° Obligations of the national courts ° Examination, notwithstanding possible national procedural rules preventing it, of the lawfulness of an opinion of the national authorities forming part of a Community decision-making process

(Council Regulation No 355/77, Art. 13(3))

4. Actions for damages ° Subject-matter ° Application aimed at obtaining compensation for loss resulting from a measure adopted by the national authorities in the context of a Community decision-making process ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(EEC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.; Council Regulation No 355/77, Art. 13(3))

Summary

1. In an action for the annulment of a decision adopted by an institution, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of a measure adopted by a national authority. In that respect it is irrelevant that the national act forms part of the Community decision-making process, in the sense that it binds the Community authority responsible for the decision and therefore determines the terms of the Community decision to be adopted.

2. Any irregularity that might affect an unfavourable opinion issued by the national authorities in the context of aid granted by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to improve the conditions under which agriculture products are processed and marketed cannot affect the validity of the decision by which the Commission refuses the aid applied for, despite the fact that that opinion is binding on the Commission.

3. The requirement that any decision of a national authority must be subject to judicial control reflects a general principle of Community law which stems from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

That requirement must be observed by a Member State in relation to the opinion, incorporated in the procedure leading to a Community decision, given by the national authorities concerning applications for aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

Accordingly, it is for the national courts, where appropriate after obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court, to rule on the lawfulness of such an opinion on the same terms on which they review any definitive measure adopted by the same national authority which is capable of adversely affecting third parties, and, consequently, to hold proceedings brought for that purpose admissible even if the domestic rules of procedure do not provide for this in such a case.

4. The combined provisions of Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty give the Court jurisdiction only to make good any damage caused by the Community institutions or their servants in the performance of their duties.

It follows that an application for compensation for loss resulting from a measure adopted by national authorities in the investigation of applications for aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund cannot be examined by the Court.