Municipality of Differdange and Others V Commission of the European Communities

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIFTH CHAMBER) 11 JULY 1984 1 Municipality of Differdange and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Aids to the steel industry) Case 222/83 1. Application for a declaration of nullity — Application in respect of a measure relating simultaneously and indivisibly to the spheres of more than one Treaty — Admissibility , with regard to one of those Treaties — Sufficient requirement (ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, EEC Treaty, Art. 173, Euratom Treaty, Art. 146) 2. Application for a declaration of nullity — Application based on Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty — Application made by a local authority — Not admissible (ECSC Treaty, Art. 33) 3. Application for a declaration of nullity — Natural and legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision addressed to a Member State and requiring, in return for the right to grant aids, the adoption of measures to reduce production capacity in an industrial sector — Decision not of direct and individual concern to the municipalities in which the factories of the undertaking affected are located (EEC Treaty, Art. 173(2) 1. An application for a declaration of 2. Since local authorities are not referred nullity in respect of a measure to in Anicie 33 of the ECSC Treaty, adopted by an institution and relating which provides an exclusive enu simultaneously and indivisibly to the meration of the persons entitled to spheres of more than one Treaty is bring an action for a declaration that admissible to the extent to which the a measure is void, such authorities jurisdiction, of the Court and the may not validly institute such remedies provided for by the relevant proceedings. provisions of one of the Treaties are 3. A Commission decision addressed to a applicable to the measure in question. Member State and requiring, in return 1 — Language of the Case: French. 2889 JUDGMENT OF 11. 7. 1984 — CASE 222/83 for the right to grant aids, the factories to be closed, cannot be adoption of measures to reduce regarded as being of direct and production capacity in an industrial individual concern to the munici sector, whilst it leaves a margin of palities with which the undertakings discretion with regard to the manner affected, by virtue of the location of of its implementation and in particular their factories, are connected. with regard to the choice of the In Case 222/83 (1) THE MUNICIPALITY OF DIFFERDANGE, (2) THE MUNICIPALITY OF DUDELANGE, (3) THE MUNICIPALITY OF PÉTANGE, (4) THE MUNICIPALITY OF ESCH-SUR-ALZETTE, (5) THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANEM, all represented by André Elvinger, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, applicants, v COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, represented by Marie-José Jonczy, a member of its Legal Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Manfred Beschel, a member of the Commission's Legal Department, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg, defendant, OBJECTION, at the present stage of the proceedings, that the application for a declaration of the nullity of Commission Decision 83/397/EEC, ECSC of 29 June 1983 concerning the aids that the Luxembourg Government proposes to grant to the steel industry (Official Journal L 227, p. 29), is inadmissible, THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) composed of: Y. Galmot, President of Chamber, O. Due, U. Everling, C. Kakouris and R. Joliét, Judges, Advocate General: CO. Lenz Registrar: D. Louterman, Administrator gives the following 2890 .

Load more