This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61995CJ0287
Sprendimo santrauka
Sprendimo santrauka
1. Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Infringement of the provisions of the Commission's Rules of Procedure relating to the authentication of its acts in the languages which are binding - Whether necessary to rely on harm or defects other than lack of authentication - Not necessary - Issue that must be raised of the Court's own motion
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC), Commission's Rules of Procedure, Art. 12)
2. Procedure - Measures of inquiry - Request for production of a document - Authenticated act - Whether necessary to establish prima facie defects other than the lack of proper authentication - Not necessary
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts. 49 and 65b)
3. Actions for annulment - Pleas in law - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Lack of authentication of a decision prior to notification in breach of the provisions of the Commission's Rules of Procedure
(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230), Commission's Rule of Procedure, Art. 12))
1. The authentication of acts provided for in the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure is intended to guarantee legal certainty by ensuring that the text adopted by the college of Commissioners becomes definitive in the languages which are binding. The principle of legal certainty requires that any act of the administration that has legal effects must be definitive, in particular as regards its author and content.
It follows that authentication constitutes an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), breach of which gives rise to an action for annulment. It is the mere failure to authenticate an act which constitutes the infringement of an essential procedural requirement and it is not necessary also to establish that the act is vitiated by some other defect or that the lack of authentication resulted in harm to the person relying on it.
If the Community court finds, on examining the act produced to it, that the act has not been properly authenticated, it must of its own motion raise the issue of infringement of an essential procedural requirement through failure to carry out proper authentication and, in consequence, annul the act vitiated by that defect.
( see paras 44-49, 55 )
2. It is for the Community court to decide in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure in regard to measures of inquiry whether it is necessary for an authenticated act to be produced, in the light of the circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to establish by reference to other factors that there is prima facie a defect in the act other than the lack of proper authentication.
( see paras 52-53 )
3. It follows from a literal and schematic interpretation of Article 12 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure that authentication of an act adopted by the Commission must necessarily precede its notification, as is confirmed by the purpose of that rule on authentication.
There is an infringement of an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) where authentication of a decision occurs on a date after the notification of the act.
( see paras 65, 68 )