Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Action for Default

  • Chapter
Development of Judicial Control of the European Communities

  • 90 Accesses

Abstract

The legal exercise of Community powers may as much be infringed by an act of a Community institution as by its inaction. In both instances, the conduct of a Community institution may be contrary to Community law — irrelevant whether explicitly or implicitly manifested. Moreover, interests of private parties may be equally affected by an illegal act or by an illegal inaction. However, this allegedly common purpose of an action for annulment or for default1 should not obscure the fact that these two legal actions pose their own problems and difficulties. Leaving this common purpose aside, it seems evident that, in practice, an action for default, compared with an action for annulment, pursues a different way of ensuring a legal conduct of a Community institution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Judgment No. 15/70 (Chevalley v. Commission) [1970] ECR 975, 979; No. 59/70 (The Netherlands v. Commission) [ 1971 ] ECR 639, 653.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ECSC Treaty Article 35; EEC Treaty Article 175; Euratom Treaty Article 148.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 191; No. 12/63 (Schlieker v. High Authority) [ 1963 ] ECR 85, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Judgment No. 42 and 49/59 (SNUPAT v. High Authority) [ 1961 ] ECR 53, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 192; No. 30/59 (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v. High Authority) [ 1961 ] ECR 1, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Advocate General Roemer in the Judgment cit. supra, id. 204, 211.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Advocate General Roemer, id. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 194.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Judgment No. 30/59 (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v. High Authority) [1961] ECR 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Annotation: Chevallier, 33 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 546–580 (1962).

    Google Scholar 

  12. ] ECR 1, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Judgment Nos. 42 and 49/59 (SNUPAT v. High Authority) id. 53, 74.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Judgment No. 75/69 (Hake v. Commission) [ 1970 ] ECR 535, 542.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Judgment No. 30/59 (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v. High Authority) [ 1961 ] ECR 1, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Judgment Nos. 10 and 18/68 (Eridania v. Commission) [ 1969 ] ECR 459, 483.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Judgment No. 15/70 (Chevalley v. Commission) [ 1970 ] ECR 975, 979.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Advocate General Dutheillet de Lamothe in Judgment Nos. 9 & 11/71 (Compagnie d’Approvisionnement… v. Commission) [ 1972 ] ECR 409, 414.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Advocate General Reischl in Judgment No. 134/73 (Holtz & Willemsen v. Council) [ 1974 ] ECR 12, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Opinion of Advocate General Roemer in Judgment No. 40/64 (Sgarlata v. Commission) [1965] ECR 229, 234. See also his remark in Judgment No. 103/63 (Rhenania v. Commission) [ 1964 ] ECR 430, 433–434.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 189; Nos. 8/54 & 10/54 (Association des Utilisateurs de Charbon du Grand Duché de Luxembourg v. High Authority) id. 227, 240; No. 12/63 (Schlieker v. High Authority) [ 1963 ] ECR 85, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Judgment No. 12/63 (Schlieker v. High Authority) [ 1963 ] ECR 85, 89. So also Advocate General Roemer in the same Judgment, id. 91, 92.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mattkies, Empfiehlt es sich, die Bestimmungen des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts über den Rechtsschutz zu ändern und zu ergänzen? Verhandlungen des Sechsundvierzigsten Deutschen Juristentages (Essen 1966) Band II, G 55, G 73.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [1971] ECR 263 (AETR); No. 81/72 (Commission v. Council) [ 1973 ] ECR 575 (Remuneration); No. 70/74 (Commission v. Council) [1975] ECR 795.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See the remark of Advocate General Roemer in Judgment No. 7/71 (Commission v. French Republic) [ 1971 ] ECR 1023, 1036.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Advocate General Gand in Judgment No. 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [ 1966 ] ECR 28, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [ 1971 ] ECR 263, 277.

    Google Scholar 

  28. E.g., Judgment No. 15/71 (Mackprang v. Commission) [1971] ECR 797, 804; No. 42/71 (Nordgetreide v. Commission) [ 1972 ] ECR 105, 110–111; No. 134/73 (Holtz & Willemsen v. Council) [1974] ECR 1, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Judgment No. 17/57 (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v. High Authority) [ 1959 ] ECR 1, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Judgment No. 17/57, cit. supra, id.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Judgment Nos. 41 and 50/59 (Hamborner Bergbau… v. High Authority) [ 1960 ] ECR 493, 505.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Judgment No. 17/57 (De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen v. High Authority) [ 1959 ] ECR 1, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Advocate General Roemer in Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement. des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] 204, 208.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Judgment No. 17/57 (De Gezamenlijke Steekolenmijnen v. High Authority) [ 1959 ] ECR 1, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Advocate General Lagrange in the Judgment, cit. supra, id. 9, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Protocol of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC Article 22, para. 2; of the EEC Article 19, para. 2; of Euratom Article 19, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Article 38(4).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Judgment No. 8/56 (ALMA v. High Authority) [1957–58] ECR 95, 98.

    Google Scholar 

  39. The case law of the Court seems not conclusive on this point. Cf. for example, Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 193 with Judgment Nos. 32 & 33/58 (SNUPAT v. High Authority) [1959] ECR 127, 138. See further the Court’s observation in Judgment Nos. 5–11 & 13–15/62 (San Michele v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] ECR 449, 460.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Judgment Nos. 42 & 49/59, [1961] ECR 53, 74; see further, Judgment No. 42/58 (SAFE v. High Authority) [1959] ECR 183, 191; Nos. 32/58 & 33/58 (SNUPAT v. High Authority) id. 127, 138; Nos. 21–26/61 (Meroni… v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] ECR 73, 77.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Judgment Nos. 5–11 and 13–15/62 (San Michele v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] ECR 449, 459.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Advocate General Gand in Judgment No. 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [ 1966 ] ECR 28, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  43. E.g., Barav, Considérations sur la spécfcité du recours en carence en droit, 11 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen 53, 61 (1975); Daig in von der Groeben-Boeckh-Thiesing, Kommentar zum EWG-Vertrag 252; Toth, The Law as it Stands on the Appeal for Failure to Act,.. Legal Issues of European Integration 65, 83 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Judgment No. 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [1966] ECR 19, 27; No. 6/70 (Borromeo v. Commission) [1970] ECR 815, 819; No. 15/70 (Chevalley v. Commission) id. 975, 979; No. 42/71 (Nordgetreide v. Commission) [1972] ECR 105, 110–111; No. 134/73 (Holtz & Willemsen v. Council) [ 1974 ] ECR 1, 11.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Judgment No. 48/65, [1966] ECR 19.

    Google Scholar 

  46. ] ECR 19, 27

    Google Scholar 

  47. Judgment No. 125/78 (GEMA v. Commission) [ 1979 ] ECR 3179, 3190 confirms the view that a non-binding act of a Community institution terminates an inaction within the meaning of Article 175 of the EEC Treaty, even if the plaintiff sought by this action for default to obtain a Commission decision to be addressed to a third person.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Advocate General Gand in Judgment 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [1966] ECR 28.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Id. 31. 50. Id. 31. 51. Id. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Judgment No. 15/70, [1970] ECR 975.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Id. 980.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Judgment No. 42/71 (Nordgetreide v. Commission) [1972] ECR 105.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Id. 110.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Confirmed by Judgment No. 90/78 (Granaria v. Council and Commission) [ 1979 ] ECR 1081, 1092–3.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Advocate General Gand in Judgment No. 6/70 (Borremeo v. Commission) [ 1970 ] ECR 820, 821.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Advocates General Gand, id. 821; Mayras in Order Nos. 109 & 114/75 (National Carbonizing Company v. Commission) [ 1977 ] ECR 382, 384.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Judgment Nos. 5–11 and 13–15/62 (San Michele… v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] ECR 449, 459–460.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 189, speaks rather generally of interests of the plaintiff Advocate General Roemer in the same Judgment, 204, 214–215, who speaks explicitly of “direct and special interests” of the plaintiff.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Judgment Nos. 41 and 50/59 (Hamborner Bergbau, Thyssen Bergbau… v. High Authority) [ 1960 ] ECR 493, 505.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Judgment No. 75/69 (Hake v. Commission) [1970] ECR 535.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Id. 542.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Id. 543.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Judgment No. 21–26/61 (Meroni… v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] 73, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  65. So also Advocate General Roemer in Judgment Nos. 41/59 and 50/59 (Hamborner Bergbau and Thyssen Bergbau v. High Authority) [1960] ECR 513, 519–20; Judgment No. 21–26/61 (Meroni… v. High Authority) [1962] ECR 79, 81; Judgment Nos. 10 and 18/68 (Eridania v. Commission) [ 1969 ] ECR 484, 494.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Judgment No. 21–26)61 (Meroni… v. High Authority) [ 1962 ] ECR 73, 78.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Advocate General Roemer in Judgment Nos. 10 and 18/68 (Eridania) [ 1969 ] ECR 484, 494.

    Google Scholar 

  68. ECSC Treaty Article 35, para. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  69. EEC Treaty Article 175, para. 2; Euratom Treaty Article 148, para. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Judgment No. 59/70 (Netherlands v. Commission) [1971] ECR 639.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Id. 653–4.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Judgment No. 59/70 ( Netherlands v. Commission ) [ 1971 ]

    Google Scholar 

  73. Advocate General Roemer in Judgment Nos. 7/54 & 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 204, 209.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See, however, Toth, The Law as it Stands on the Appeal for Failure to Act, 2 The Legal Issue of Integration 65, 76 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Judgment Nos. 19/60, 21/60, 2/61 and 3/61 (Société Fives, Lille Cail… v. High Authority) [ 1961 ] ECR 281, 294.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Roemer, Die Untätigkeitsklage im Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 14 Sociaal Economische Wetgeving 1, 14 (1966); see however, Telchini, “Le recours en carence”, in Dix ans de jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés Européennes 381 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises y. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 192; No. 30/59 (I)e Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen y. High Authority) [ 1961 ] ECR 1, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Sec supra.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [ 1971 ] ECR 263, 277.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Houben, Les Conseils des Ministres des Communautés Européennes 203.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Advocate General Roemer in Judgment No. 7/71 ( Commission v. France ) [ 1971 ]

    Google Scholar 

  82. Gerickc, Allgemeine Rechtssetzungsbefugnisse nach Artikel 235 EWG Vertrag, 70 who excludes an action for default on such grounds.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wolf, Le recours en carence dans le droit des Communautés Européennes, [ 1966 ] Revue du Marché Commun 111, 119 (No. 891.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [ 1971 ] ECR 263, 277.

    Google Scholar 

  85. EEC Treaty Article 149, para. I.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Judgment No. 134/73 (Holtz & Willemsen v. Council) [ 1974 ] ECR 1, 11. 68. Advocate General Reischl in the Judgment, cit. supra, id. 12, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Louis, Les Règlements de la Communauté Economique Européenne 7.

    Google Scholar 

  88. This aspect’ is, for example, overlooked by Merkel, Rat und Kommission im Rechtssetzungsverfahren der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft 53–54, when considering an invitation of the Council, within the meaning of Article 152, to be identical with a request to act, under Article 175.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [ 1971 ] ECR 263, 279.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Judgment No. 6/70 (Borromeo v. Commission) [1970] ECR 815, 818–9; No. 15/70 (Chevalley v. Commission) id. 975, 980.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Judgment No. 15/71 (Mackprang v. Commission) [1971] ECR 797, 804; No. 42/71 (Nordgetreide v. Commission) [1972] ECR 105, 110–111; No. 134/73 (Holtz & Willcrosen v. Council) [ 1974 ] ECR 1. 11. Annotation Nicolaysen: 9 Europarecht 153–163 (1974); Judgment No. 90/78 (Granaria v. Council and Commission) [1979] ECR 1081. 1092–3.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Judgment No. 48/65 ( Lütticke v. Commission ) [ 1966 ]

    Google Scholar 

  93. See supra, note 93.

    Google Scholar 

  94. But thus Ehle, Reformbedürftigkeit der Rechtsschutzbestimmungen des Vertrages der Euro-

    Google Scholar 

  95. Thus, for example, Advocate General Gand in Judgment No. 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [ 1966 ] ECR 28, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Judgment No. 22/70 ( Commission v. Council ) [ 1971 ]

    Google Scholar 

  97. Danner, Die Klagemöglichkeit privater Personen gegen Massnahmen der Kommission, die an Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet sind, nach Art. 173 Abs. 2 EWG-Vertrag 54; Ehle, Klage-und Prozessrecht des EWG-Vertrages, Kommentar, p. 10, No. 26; Matthies, Empfiehlt es sich, die Bestummungen des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts über den Rechtsschutz zu ändern und zu ergänzen, Verhandlungen des 46. Deutschen Juristentages, Band II (Sitzungsberichte), Teil G, G 64–65; Roemer, Die Untätigkeitsklage im Recht der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 14 Sociaal Economische Wetgeving 1, 10 (1966); Wolf, Le recours en carence dans le droit des Communautés Européennes, [1966] Revue du Marché Commun 111, 121 (No. 89).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Thus, for example, Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 194.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Advocate General Gand in Case No. 48/65 (Lütticke v. Commission) [ 1966 ] ECR 28, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  100. The French text of Article 189, para. 4 of “La décision est obligatoire… pour les destinataire qu’elle désigne.” Emphasis added. And so does the German version “Die Entscheidung ist… für diejenigen verbindlich, die sie bezeichnet.”

    Google Scholar 

  101. Thus, for example, Judgment Nos. 106 and 107/63 (Toepfer and Getreide-Import Gesellschaft v. Commission) [1965] ECR 405, 412, confirmed by Judgment No. 100/74 (CAM v. Commission) [ 1975 ] ECR 1393, 1403.

    Google Scholar 

  102. E.g., Judgment No. 15/70 (Chevalley v. Commission) [ 1970 ] ECR 975, 979.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Thus Judgment Nos. 7/54 and 9/54 (Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembourgeoises v. High Authority) [1954–56] ECR 175, 191; No. 6/60 (Humblet v. Belgian State) [1960] ECR 559, 572; No. 8–11/66 (Cimenteries CBR… y. Commission) [ 1967 ] ECR 75, 92.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Judgment No. 22/60 (Commission y. Council) [1971] ECR 263.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Judgment No. 8/71 (Deutscher Komponistenverband v. Commission) id. 705.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Opinion in Judgment No. 103/63 (Rhenania v. Commission) [ 1964 ] ECR 430, 433.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Opinion in Judgment No. 8/71, [1971] ECR 712, 715. Advocate General Roemer stated this view already previously in his article Die Untätigkeitsklage im Rechte der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 14 Sociaal Economische Wetgeving 1, 13–14 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Opinion in Judgment No. 48/65 (Liitticke v. Commission) [ 1966 ] ECR 28, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Judgment No. 103/63, [ 1964 ] ECR 425, 429.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Judgment No. 48/65, [ 1966 ] ECR 19, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Judgment No. 15/70, [ 1970 ] ECR 975, 979. Emphasis added.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Judgment No. 8/71, [1971] ECR 705.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Id. 712 at p. 715. 116. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Judgment No. 22/70 (Commission v. Council) [ 1971 ] ECR 263, 276–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Gerhard Bebr J.U.D., L.L.M., (Yale), J.S.D.(Yale)

Authors
  1. Gerhard Bebr J.U.D., L.L.M., (Yale), J.S.D.(Yale)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1981 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers bv, The Hague

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bebr, G. (1981). Action for Default. In: Development of Judicial Control of the European Communities. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9019-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9019-0_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8339-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9019-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation