1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT ON 14 JULY 1976 THE CONFEDERATION REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL OF 1 JUNE 1976 ( OJ L 149 , 1976 , P . 12 ) ' DESIGNATING REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATIONS REQUIRED TO DRAW UP LISTS OF CANDIDATES ' FOR THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 18 OF THE ECSC TREATY .
2 BY THE SAME APPLICATION THE CONFEDERATION REQUESTED THE ANNULMENT OF THE REFUSAL OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL CONTAINED IN HIS LETTER OF 1 JULY 1976 TO SUBMIT TO THE COUNCIL THE CANDIDATES PROPOSED TO HIM BY THE CONFEDERATION IN ITS LETTER OF 4 JUNE 1976 FOR ONE OF THE SEATS TO BE ALLOTTED TO WORKERS ' REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATIONS FOR FRANCE .
3 IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT ITS EXCLUSION SINCE 1966 FROM THE WORKERS ' REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATIONS DESIGNED TO FILL ONE OF THE SEATS ON THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ALLOTTED TO FRANCE CONSTITUTES AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE EEC TREATY , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 18 .
4 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 20 SEPTEMBER 1976 THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE .
5 IN SUPPORT OF THIS OBJECTION IT CLAIMS THAT NEITHER ARTICLE 33 NOR ARTICLE 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY EMPOWERS THE CONFEDERATION TO SUBMIT SUCH AN APPLICATION AND IT INFERS FROM THIS THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE .
6 THE CONFEDERATION ARGUED THAT THIS OBJECTION WAS NOT WELL-FOUNDED AND MAINTAINED IN PARTICULAR THAT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION FLOWS FROM THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF ARTICLE 31 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHEREBY ' THE COURT SHALL ENSURE THAT IN THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THIS TREATY , AND OF THE RULES LAID DOWN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF , THE LAW IS OBSERVED ' .
7 IT FURTHER MAINTAINS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM THERE IS A RISK THAT THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE WILL MEAN THAT ITS CASE CANNOT BE HEARD .
8 WHILST THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE APPLICANT RELIES CALL FOR A WIDE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING THE INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING INDIVIDUALS ' LEGAL PROTECTION THEY DO NOT PERMIT THE COURT ON ITS OWN AUTHORITY TO AMEND THE ACTUAL TERMS OF ITS JURISDICTION .
9 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL MAY BE DECLARED VOID BY THE COURT ONLY ON AN APPLICATION BY A MEMBER STATE OR THE HIGH AUTHORITY .
10 SINCE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED WITH REGARD TO SUBJECT-MATTER OTHER THAN THAT DEFINED BY ARTICLE 38 THE APPLICATION FAILS TO FULFIL AN ESSENTIAL CONDITION AS TO ADMISSIBILITY LAID DOWN BY THIS PROVISION .
11 SINCE ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY PERMITS AN APPLICATION TO BE MADE ONLY AGAINST ACTS OF THE COMMISSION IT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE WHICH IS AN APPLICATION AGAINST THE COUNCIL .
12 MOREOVER , ALTHOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ECSC TREATY DO NOT ENTITLE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A DIRECT APPLICATION AGAINST ACTS OF THE COUNCIL IT STILL REMAINS POSSIBLE FOR THE COURT TO REVIEW THE VALIDITY OF ACTS OF THE COUNCIL AT THE INSTIGATION OF A NATIONAL COURT ON THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 41 OF THE TREATY .
13 IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COUNCIL OF 1 JULY 1976 IT LIKEWISE LACKS A LEGAL BASIS ON THE SAID ARTICLES 33 AND 38 .
14 FURTHERMORE THIS LETTER MERELY CONFIRMS THE CONTESTED DECISION OF THE COUNCIL AND RECALLS THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY IT IN APPOINTING MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE .
15 FOR THESE REASONS THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .
16 FINALLY , WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST TO STAY THE PROCEDURE OF THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS OF THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION THIS REQUEST BECOMES IRRELEVANT FROM THE POINT WHEN THE COURT DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
COSTS
17 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY MUST BE ORDERED TO BEAR THE COSTS .
18 NEVERTHELESS UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE COURT MAY ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS , WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXCEPTIONAL .
19 THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES MAY BE HELD TO OBTAIN WHEN A TRADE UNION INSTITUTES PROCEEDINGS WITH THE SOLE AIM OF ENSURING THAT THE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE IS REPRESENTATIVE , A REQUIREMENT EXPRESSLY LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 18 OF THE TREATY .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE .
2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .
