ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Taxation ° Recoverable costs ° Concept ° Elements to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73)

Summary

The Court is not empowered under Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. Under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure, expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings are to be regarded as recoverable costs; as follows in particular from Article 72 of the Rules, the term "proceedings" refers only to proceedings before the Court and does not include any prior stage.

Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court must consider all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the lawyers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Time-limits ° Point from which time starts to run ° Measure not notified to the applicant ° Obligation for the person concerned to request the whole text of the measure within a reasonable time once its existence is known

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, third para.)

Summary

Notwithstanding the question whether a decision ordering the recovery of State aid under the ECSC Treaty should be notified to the undertaking concerned, that undertaking cannot escape its action being time-barred by relying on the fact that the decision was not notified to it if it was aware of the existence of that decision and did not ask within a reasonable time for the decision to be sent to it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility of reference ° Submission of a question raised without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context ° General or hypothetical questions

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177; Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In view of the need to arrive at an interpretation of Community law which will be helpful to the national court, it is necessary for that court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, to explain the factual premisses on which those questions are based.

That requirement, which may be considered less pressing in the case of questions relating to specific technical points and which may enable the Court to give a useful reply even when the national court has not given an exhaustive description of their context, is necessary from another point of view also, that of enabling the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.

The spirit of cooperation which prevails in the preliminary ruling procedure requires the national court to have regard to the task entrusted to the Court of Justice, which is to assist in the administration of justice in the Member States and not to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions.

Consequently, questions referred for a preliminary ruling which are too vague about the legal and factual situations envisaged by the national court or which are purely hypothetical are manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures, as referred to in Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure, must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being caused by the immediate application of the measure which is the subject of the main proceedings.

With regard to an application for the suspension of the operation of a regulation amending, in a restrictive way, the conditions for the eligibility for intervention of certain agricultural products, the applicant does not establish the urgency of the measure sought in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage where its argument is based on the presumed economic behaviour of farmers in the sector in question and is not supported by evidence making out a sufficiently probable case that that conduct will materialize.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of the operation of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Conditions for granting - Balancing of all the interests involved - Specificity of the damage

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2))

Summary

Under Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure, suspension is granted only if circumstances exist which give rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law relied upon establish a prima facie case for granting the measure applied for. Suspension also requires the balance of all the interests concerned to tilt towards granting such a measure.

The urgency of an application for suspension must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage from being done to the party requesting suspension. When the application seeks suspension of the operation of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty, it is not enough merely to refer to effects which are inherent in the imposition of anti-dumping duties, namely a rise in the price of the product affected by the duty and a corresponding diminution in Community market share. Indeed, the very purpose of an anti-dumping duty is to offset the dumping margin found to exist by increasing the price of the product in question. Grant of the measure requested can therefore be justified only if it is proved that imposition of the anti-dumping duty is causing serious and irreparable damage that is specific to the applicant.

An undertaking which merely states that it has not carried out any more exports since the provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed, that its importers seem to have chosen other sources of supply, and that that situation must result in its complete withdrawal from the Community market, has not produced sufficient proof of such damage. By offering nothing more than assertions or conjecture, with no documentary evidence in support of its factual allegations or in support of any other circumstances which might lead to the conclusion that the damage alleged is serious, irreparable and specific, such an undertaking fails to discharge the burden of proof incumbent upon it.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissible ° Dismissal of appeal

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Officials ° Reassignment ° Administration' s duty to have regard to the welfare of officials ° Reconciliation with the interests of the service
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Directive harmonizing the fees to be charged for health inspections and controls of meat and replacing a decision addressed to the Member States ° Legislative character ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Directive 93/118)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Participation in the preparation of a legislative measure ° Subsequent right of action against that measure ° None

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.)

3. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Directive harmonizing the fees to be charged for health inspections and controls of meat ° Action brought by an association comprising traders in the sector concerned ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Directive 93/118)

Summary

1. Directive 93/118, on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, does not contain any specific provision whose character would be that of an individual decision. Although it repeals and replaces a decision, it is a measure having general normative scope covering in a general, abstract way all traders of the Member States who, at the end of the period laid down for its implementation, fulfil the conditions which it lays down. Its application also requires transposition in each domestic legal system, which excludes it from being a "disguised" decision whose real addressees are traders in the economic sector concerned or an association to which they belong, which would therefore be entitled under Article 173 of the Treaty to challenge it in an action for annulment.

2. The fact that a natural person participated in the preparation of a legislative measure, such as a directive adopted on the basis of Article 43 of the Treaty, that is to say in a procedure which does not provide for any intervention by individuals, cannot, unlike participation in a procedure in which such intervention is provided for, for example that provided for by Article 93(2) of the Treaty in the matter of State aids, give him a right of action against that measure.

3. Directive 93/118, on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat, concerns the traders in the economic sector in question and an association to which they all belong only by reason of their objective status of economic agents active in the sector in which the directive takes effect, in the same way as any other Community economic agent carrying on the same activity, and does not adversely affect any of their specific rights, so that it does not concern them individually within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Pleas in law relating to matters definitively settled by a judgment of the Court of First Instance which was the subject of an appeal dismissed by the Court of Justice ° Res judicata ° Appeal dismissed

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 52)

Summary

An appeal in which all of the pleas in law put forward by the appellant relate to matters definitively settled by a judgment of the Court of First Instance which was the subject of an appeal dismissed by the Court of Justice must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Criteria for admissibility ° Admissibility of the main application ° Irrelevancy ° Limits

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1))

2. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Damage which may be relied on by a Member State ° Damage arising out of expenditure incurred in breach of the rules governing the allocation of powers between the various Community institutions

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))

3. Applications for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Interests to be taken into account

(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))

Summary

1. In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, where the contention is that the main application is manifestly inadmissible, the judge hearing the application for interim measures must establish whether there is a prima facie case for finding that there is a certain probability that the main application is admissible.

2. In view both of the essential place which the institutional rules governing the allocation of powers between the various Community institutions must be recognized as occupying in the Community legal order and of the role which the Member States play therein, involving participation in the exercise of legislative and budgetary powers and contribution to the Community budget, the use by the Commission of Community funds for measures which lack a proper legal basis because they have not been authorized by the Council would be such as to cause a Member State serious and irreparable damage justifying the granting of interim measures.

3. When the judge hearing an application for interim measures balances the applicant' s interest in preventing the procedures initiated by the decisions whose annulment it seeks from being carried through against the defendant' s interest in expediting those procedures, he must examine whether the possible annulment of the contested decisions by the Court hearing the main action would make it possible to reverse the situation and conversely to what extent each of the various possible interim measures would be such as to prevent the aims of the contested decisions from being achieved in the event of the main application being dismissed.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 1998. - Giovanni Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Pay slips - Weightings - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3761/92, 3765/92 and 3766/92 - Plea of inadmissibility. - Case C-30/96 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-00377



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of evidence produced in accordance with the proper procedure - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 1997. - Calvin Williams v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. - Appeal - Officials - Obligations - Acts incompatible with the dignity of the official's office - Duty of loyalty - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post. - Case C-156/96 P.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-00239



Summary



Keywords

Officials - Rights and obligations - Acts capable of reflecting on the dignity of office - Serious insults - Disciplinary measure - Judicial review

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12, first para.)

Summary

An official who utters in public serious insults detrimental to the honour of the persons to whom they refer reflects on the dignity of his office and infringes the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.

In assessing the lawfulness of a disciplinary measure in the light of that provision, the Court of First Instance is not required to examine whether the conduct in question constitutes defamation as it might be defined in criminal law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Provisional measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable harm - Power of assessment of the judge hearing the application - Cumulative conditions - Consequences in the context of an appeal

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Insufficient statement of reasons - Application as regards orders on applications for interim measures

Summary

3 In the context of the overall examination of an application for suspension of the operation of an act or for other interim measures, the judge hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.

Consequently, in an appeal against an order dismissing an application for interim measures on the ground that there was no urgency for the measures sought, pleas which relate to the existence of a prima facie case but do not call into question the lack of urgency cannot form grounds for setting the order aside, even partially.

4 The judge hearing an application for interim measures cannot be required to reply explicitly to all the points of fact and law raised in the course of the interlocutory proceedings. It is sufficient that the reasons given validly justify his order in the light of the circumstances of the case and enable the Court of Justice to exercise its powers of review.
Order of the Court of 21 March 1997. - Région wallonne v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Referral to Court of First Instance. - Case C-95/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01787



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Actions brought by Member States - Definition - Action brought before the Court of Justice by a regional authority of a federal State - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Referral to the Court of First Instance

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33; EC Treaty, Art. 173; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, para. 2; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, para. 2; Council Decisions 88/591, 93/350 and 94/149)

Summary

Since the entry into force of Decision 94/149, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is limited to actions brought by a Member State or a Community institution.

In this respect, it is apparent from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term `Member State', for the purposes of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot include the governments of regions or autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have. If the contrary were true, it would undermine the institutional balance provided for by the Treaties, which, inter alia, govern the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say, the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and the Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions. It is not possible for the European Communities to comprise a greater number of Member States than the number of States between which they were established.

Accordingly, the Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for annulment brought under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty and with reference to Article 173 of the EC Treaty by a legal person such as a regional federal authority, and must, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EC and ECSC Statutes, refer the action to the Court of First Instance.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals - Manifestly inadmissible action before the Court of First Instance - Appeal clearly unfounded or inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119)
61997O0315

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 1999. - Diego Echauz Brigaldi, César Montoliu García, María Jesús Ruíz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio and Leopoldo Fabra Utray v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Officials - Decisions of the Commission refusing to grant special leave for elections and travelling time - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded. - Case C-315/97 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01287
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Non-contractual liability - Scope - Acts of the Community institutions or acts of servants of the Community - Meaning - Whether instruments of primary Community law are covered - Not covered - Position where damage is attributable to the Single European Act

(EC Treaty, Arts 7a (now, after amendment, Art. 14 EC), 178 (now Art. 235 EC) and 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea raised for the first time in appeal proceedings - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea alleging incorrect appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible - Whether the Court of Justice may review the appraisal of the evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Art. 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1 As regards non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, damage suffered by customs agents on account of the abolition of customs and tax frontiers cannot be imputed to the Council or the Commission, since the cause lies, rather, in the entry into force of the Single European Act. Article 13 of the Single European Act, which inserted into the Treaty an Article 8a, which became Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 14 EC), and which provides that `[t]he internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers', is the direct and determining cause of such damage. The Single European Act, however, is an instrument of primary Community law which is thus neither an act of the Community institutions nor an act of the servants of the Community in the performance of their duties within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288, second paragraph, EC). It cannot, therefore, give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.

2 A plea in law which is first raised during appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice must be dismissed as inadmissible. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court of Justice, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is thus confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued at first instance.

3 The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. Consequently, the appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not constitute (unless the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted) a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.