Order of the Court of 10 November 1981.#Jean Amesz and Others v European Commission and Council of the European Union.#Joined Cases C-532/79, C-534/79, C-567/79, C-600/79, C-618/79 and C-660/79.

Parties

IN JOINED CASES 532 , 534 , 567 , 600 , 618 AND 660/79

1 . JAN AMESZ , RESIDING AT 28 VIA CARNISIO , COCQUIO ( VARESE ), ITALY ,

2 . ROLF BAUCH , RESIDING AT 13 VIA MATTEOTTI , ANGERA ( VARESE ), ITALY ,

3 . JAKOB FLAMM , RESIDING IN THE VIA GRAZIA DELEDDA , RANCO ( VARESE ), ITALY ,

4 . HANS HOFFMANN , RESIDING AT 2 VIA CERVINO , TAINO ( VARESE ), ITALY ,

5 . HELMUT KNOEPPEL , RESIDING AT 116 VIA MATTEOTTI , CADREZZATE ( VARESE ), ITALY ,

6 . HENRICUS NIJMAN , RESIDING AT 55 VIA CORRIDONI , VARESE , ITALY ,

REPRESENTED BY B . POTTHAST AND H.-J . RUBER , OF THE COLOGNE BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF V . BIEL , 18A , RUE DES GLACIS ,

APPLICANTS ,

V

1 . COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY J . PIPKORN , A MEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF O . MONTALTO , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,

2 . COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , J . CARBERY , ACTING AS AGENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF D . FONTEIN , DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK , KIRCHBERG ,

DEFENDANTS ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE CLAIMS SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL ACTIONS ,

Grounds

THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE COUNCIL MUST BE UPHELD . AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF REGULATIONS NO 3085/78 AND NO 3086/78 OF THE COUNCIL IS INADMISSIBLE , SINCE THE REGULATIONS IN QUESTION ARE OF GENERAL APPLICATION AND CANNOT BE ASSIMILATED TO DECISIONS WHICH , ALTHOUGH TAKEN IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS , ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS . MOREOVER , EVEN IF SUCH AN ACTION AGAINST THE COUNCIL WERE ADMISSIBLE IN THAT RESPECT IT WOULD NEVERTHELESS BE INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS OUT OF TIME , HAVING BEEN LODGED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE EAEC TREATY , WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY .

THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION SEEKS TO OBTAIN PRECISELY THE SAME RESULTS AS THOSE WHICH THEY WOULD OBTAIN FROM THE ANNULMENT OF THE REGULATIONS . THE COURT HAS HELD ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS , IN PARTICULAR IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1966 ( SCHRECKENBERG , CASE 59/65 ( 1966 ) ECR 543 ) THAT ALTHOUGH A PARTY MAY TAKE ACTION BY MEANS OF A CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION WITHOUT BEING OBLIGED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO SEEK THE ANNULMENT OF THE ILLEGAL MEASURE WHICH CAUSES HIM DAMAGE , HE MAY NOT BY THIS MEANS CIRCUMVENT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPLICATION WHICH CONCERNS THE SAME ILLEGALITY AND WHICH HAS THE SAME FINANCIAL END IN VIEW . THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .

IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPLICATIONS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

HOWEVER , ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE STATES THAT IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER )

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COUNCIL .

2 . THE APPLICANTS AND THE COUNCIL SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .