ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)
21 March 2002 (1) (Action for annulment - Time-limit - Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T-218/01,
Laboratoire Monique Rémy SAS, established in Grasse (France), represented by J.-F. Pupel, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Commission of the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
defendant,
APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 1380 of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial aid previously granted to the applicant by the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund, Guidance Section,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges,
Registrar: H. Jung,
makes the following
Order
Facts and Procedure
1.
By Decision C(2001) 1380 of 2 July 2001 (hereinafter the contested measure), the Commission withdrew the financial aid granted to the applicant from the European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund, Guidance Section, by Commission Decision C(93) 3185 of 10 November 1993 in respect of a pilot project to demonstrate exploitation of the Iris, a Mediterranean plant, for the luxury perfume and food flavourings industry (France, Spain, Greece).
2.
The contested measure, which was sent to the applicant by the Commission by letter of 2 July 2001, was received by the applicant on 6 July 2001.
3.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 21 September 2001, the applicant brought this action for the annulment of the contested measure.
4.
By separate document, lodged at the Court Registry on 26 October 2001, the Commission, pursuant to Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, raised a plea of inadmissibility of the action in part on the ground that it was brought out of time and in part on the ground of infringement of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure.
5.
The applicant lodged its observations on that plea on 3 December 2001.
Forms of order sought by the parties
6.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- declare the application admissible;
- annul the contested measure;
- order the Commission to pay the costs.
7.
The defendant contends that the Court should:
- declare the application manifestly inadmissible;
- order the applicant to pay the costs.
Law
8.
Under Article 114(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if a party so applies, the Court may rule on admissibility without going into the substance of the case. Under paragraph 3 of that article the remainder of the proceedings is to be oral unless the Court otherwise decides. In this case, the Court considers that it is sufficiently informed by the documents in the file and that there is no need to open the oral procedure.
9.
Under the terms of the fifth subparagraph of Article 230 EC proceedings for annulment are to be instituted within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the applicant, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. Under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that period is also to be extended by 10 days on account of distance. Under Article 101(2) of those Rules, if that period would otherwise end on a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday, it is to be extended until the end of the first following working day.
10.
In this case the contested measure was notified to the applicant on 6 July 2001.
11.
The period prescribed for bringing the action for annulment expired, under the rules mentioned in paragraph 9 above, at midnight on Monday 17 September 2001.
12.
The action in this case, which was commenced on 21 September 2001, is therefore out of time.
13.
The applicant however claims that having posted the envelope containing the application by registered post on 11 September 2001, it was entitled, in view of the fact, alleged by it, that the time for...
