Compagnie Continentale (France) v Commission of the European Communities. (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union) [1996] EUECJ T-494/93 (24 September 1996)

Compagnie Continentale (France) v Commission of the European Communities. (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union) [1996] EUECJ T-494/93 (24 September 1996)

The applicant undertaking was not directly concerned by the Commission's decision, as its legal relationship was only with the agent appointed by the borrowing republic, not with the Commission. The Commission's decision did not affect the legal validity of the contracts between the applicant and the agent....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] EUECJ T-494/93
Parties
Applicant: Compagnie Continentale (France); Respondent: Commission of the European Communities
Jurisdiction
European Union
Procedural Posture
Action for Annulment / Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed as inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Actions for Annulment, Direct and Individual Concern, Jurisdiction of Community Judicature
European Union Law Administrative Law Admissibility of Actions for Annulment Direct and Individual Concern Jurisdiction of Community Judicature

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Compagnie Continentale (France)

Applicant

Commission of the European Communities

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Action for Annulment / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant undertaking is directly and individually concerned by the Commission's decision refusing to recognize amendments to contracts as conforming with Community provisions
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can seek restoration of rights in an action for annulment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant undertaking was not directly concerned by the Commission's decision, as its legal relationship was only with the agent appointed by the borrowing republic, not with the Commission. The Commission's decision did not affect the legal validity of the contracts between the applicant and the agent. Therefore, the applicant lacked standing to bring the action. Additionally, claims for restoration of rights are inadmissible in an action for annulment.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as inadmissible