ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action, pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by a natural or legal person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, and Article 178 of the Treaty, concerning the introduction, in the first case by the Commission and in the second by both the Commission and the Council, of safeguard measures in respect of imports - Another action, also pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by the same person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty, concerning the introduction of those measures by the Council - Joinder of the two cases - Action pending before the Court of Justice, brought by a Member State, for annulment of the Council measure - In the interests of the proper administration of justice that the Court of Justice should take into consideration the arguments of the natural or legal person - Disjoinder of the two cases pending before the Court of First Instance - Jurisdiction in the second case declined by the Court of First Instance - Proceedings before the Court of First Instance stayed in the first case

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 50)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Letter from the Commission informing the applicant of the continuation of a procedure for cancelling a contribution and recovering the amount already paid

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 4028/86)

Summary

Any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void.

In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision.

A letter in which the Commission informs the applicant company of the continuation of an internal procedure with a view to cancelling financial aid granted to it under Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and recovering the amount already paid is to be regarded as an intermediate measure whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an actionable measure. As to any adverse effects arising from the fact that the procedure is pending before the Commission, they are merely the logical consequence of the commencement of that procedure and, so long as the Commission adopts only temporary measures, do not indicate the existence of a measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1997. - Gouvernement des Antilles néerlandaises v Council of the European Union. - Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Interlocutory proceedings - Application for interim measures - Urgency - None. - Case T-179/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01297



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable harm - Balancing all the interests involved

(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The judge hearing an interlocutory application for suspension of operation of a measure must first examine whether the possible annulment of the contested measure by the Court ruling on the substance would make it possible to reverse the situation that would be brought about by the immediate implementation of that measure and conversely whether suspension of its operation would be such as to prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application's being dismissed.

In the case of a safeguard measure adopted in the context of the association of the overseas countries and territories, the judge hearing an application for interim measures may not, other than in a situation of obvious urgency, override the Council's assessment as to the choice of the most appropriate safeguard measure, without running the risk of encroaching upon that institution's power of assessment.

Where the applicant has not shown that it is in danger of suffering serious and irreparable harm as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate damages could be awarded if the contested regulation were to be annulled by the Court ruling on the substance. The fact that the regulation may have already been implemented and its specified period of application may have expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its rights, since the institution concerned would be obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 20 November 1997. - Interprovinciale des fédérations d'hôteliers, restaurateurs, cafetiers and entreprises assimilées de Wallonie ASBL (Féd. Horeca-Wallonie) v Commission of the European Communities. - Procedure - Time-limits - Method of calculation - Inadmissibility. - Case T-85/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02113



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Method of calculation

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 101 and 102)

Summary

Article 80(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - to which Article 101(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance corresponds, relating solely to cases where the prescribed period expires on a Saturday or a Sunday or an official holiday - is applicable only where the entire prescribed period, including any extension on account of distance, ends on a Saturday or a Sunday or an official holiday.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 July 1998. - Ca'Pasta Srl v Commission of the European Communities. - Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 - Common fisheries policy - Community financial assistance - Procedure for cancelling the assistance - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-274/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02925



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Letter from the Commission informing the applicant of the continuation of a procedure for cancelling a contribution and recovering the amount already paid

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 4028/86)

Summary

Any measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void.

In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, and particularly at the end of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision.

A letter in which the Commission informs the applicant company of the continuation of an internal procedure with a view to cancelling financial aid granted to it under Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, and recovering the amount already paid is to be regarded as an intermediate measure whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision and cannot, therefore, be regarded as an actionable measure. As to any adverse effects arising from the fact that the procedure is pending before the Commission, they are merely the logical consequence of the commencement of that procedure and, so long as the Commission adopts only temporary measures, do not indicate the existence of a measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 June 1998. - David T. Keeling v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). - Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) - Decision of the President of the Office concerning the organisation of the Boards of Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 173 of the EC Treaty - Inadmissibility. - Case T-148/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02217



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action brought directly under Article 173 of the Treaty against a decision of a Community body not mentioned therein, by a member of its staff - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 4 and 173; Council Regulation No 40/94)

Summary

An action brought directly against a decision of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) by a member of a Board of Appeal of the Office on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

According to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the Community judicature may review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It follows that acts emanating from Community bodies other than those listed in that provision may not be challenged on the basis of it. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is not one of the Community institutions listed in Article 4 of the Treaty, nor is it mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

Moreover, such a decision is not immune from all judicial review, having regard to the remedies provided for by Regulation No 40/94 which are potentially available against it.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 November 1998. - Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of the European Union. - Disclaimer of jurisdiction. - Case T-41/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-04117



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action, pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by a natural or legal person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty, concerning the introduction by the Council of safeguard measures in respect of imports - Action, pending before the Court of Justice, for annulment of the same measure, but brought by a Member State - In the interests of the proper administration of justice that the Court of Justice should take into consideration the arguments of the natural or legal person - Jurisdiction declined by the Court of First Instance

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, third para.)
As regards the taxation of costs, since there are no Community provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court of First Instance 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 agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

Under the fourth paragraph of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 of that Statute, an official bringing an action before the Court of First Instance has the right to have himself represented by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The fact that an official of Greek nationality chose a lawyer of the Athens Bar to defend his interests before the Court of First Instance cannot as such be characterised as an abuse of the right conferred by the provision cited above. Consequently, there is no justification, when taxing costs, for charging to the official the proportion of the expenses specifically arising from the distance between Athens and Brussels/Luxembourg, in particular the travel costs necessarily incurred by his lawyer.

(see para. 24)
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 4 August 1999. - Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Limitation period. - Case T-106/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02553



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for damages - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Daily loss of interest on the value of the damage - Irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)

2 Actions for damages - Limitation period - Interruption - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC) and Art. 175 (now Art. 232 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)

Summary

1 It is apparent from the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288, second paragraph, EC) that for the Community to incur non-contractual liability and for the right to compensation for damage to arise, a series of requirements must first have been met, concerning the illegality of the alleged conduct of the institution, the reality of the damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the alleged damage. Time for the purposes of bringing proceedings in matters arising from the liability of the Community cannot start to run before all the requirements governing an obligation to provide compensation for damage are satisfied and in particular before the damage to be made good has materialised.

On the other hand, the limitation period is not prevented from running by the daily loss of interest on the value of the damage in respect of which compensation is claimed before the Court. Interest being calculated on the value of the damage at the date on which it materialised, its purpose is merely to ensure updated compensation for the damage suffered and it must not be confused with the event, within the meaning of Article 43 of the Statute, which constitutes the moment when the limitation period begins to run.

2 The limitation period for proceedings in which it is sought to establish Community liability may be interrupted either by the application brought before the Community judicature, or by a preliminary request addressed to the relevant institution, it being however understood that, in the latter case, interruption only occurs if the request is followed by an application within the time-limits determined by reference to Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) or Article 175 thereof (now Article 232 EC), depending on the case.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 1998. - Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd v Commission of the European Communities. - Common agricultural policy - Raspberries intended for processing - Flat-rate grant to producers' organisations - Recovery of sums paid - Act against which no action lies - Legal effects - Application for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-22/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-04219



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Commission letter rejecting an application for amendment of a provision of a regulation specifying the quantities to be taken into account for the grant of Community aid - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 1991/92; Commission Regulation No 2252/92)

Summary

The action brought by an organisation of growers of raspberries for processing (a recognised producers' organisation pursuant to Regulation No 1991/92) for annulment of the Commission decision expressed in a letter refusing to accede to a request for, essentially, amendment of Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 fixing the volume of produce marketed to be taken into consideration for the purposes of granting the flat-rate aid to recognised producers' organisations is inadmissible.

Only measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. The letter at issue is not such a measure, since the obligation to repay - incumbent upon the applicant because it had been advanced start-up aid in excess of the definitive amount of such aid calculated in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 - was a consequence of applying the rules in force. The fact that as a result of an informal decision the competent national authority did not take action to recover the debt, pending the Commission's adoption of a position, does not mean that the applicant's legal position in relation to the debt depended on the Commission's response to the request for amendment of the rules at issue.

Moreover, an action brought by a natural or legal person against a refusal by the Commission to rectify a measure retoactively will be inadmissible if the rectification requested would have had to be adopted in the form of a generally applicable regulation, as in the case of an amendment of Article 6 above, which provides for the grant of aid on the basis of an objective situation.
Case T-54/98





Aruba

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Association of the overseas countries and territories – Imports into the Community of sugar originating in Aruba – Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 17 September 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Action by an overseas country or territory – Legal basis

(Art. 173, fourth para., EC (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation on rules for issuing import licences for certain products qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products – Action by Aruba – Inadmissibility

(Art. 173, fourth para., EC (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Commission Regulation No 2553/97)

1.

2.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability - Loss caused by an unlawful legislative act - Compensation - Conditions - Direct nature of the damage

(Arts 235 EC and 288 EC, second para.)

Summary

$$( see paras 26-27 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Conditions of admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Irrelevance - Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

Summary

$$In principle the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in relation to an application for interim measures so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. Nevertheless, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main action is admissible.

( see para. 21 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Cumulative conditions

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Regulations

(Art. 253 EC)

Summary

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that applications for suspension of operation must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the relief applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of operation must be dismissed if any one of them is not fulfilled.

( see para. 32 )

2. Although the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the court to exercise its powers of review, the statement of the reasons on which regulations are based cannot be required to specify the various matters of detail dealt with in the regulations, provided that the latter fall within the general scheme of the body of measures of which they form part.

( see para. 43 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of operation of a Commission decision relating to the control of concentrations - Conditions of granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Damage of a financial nature - Balancing of all the interests at issue

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 4064/89)

Summary

$$In the context of an application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision refusing to approve undertakings as purchasers of certain assets divested in a procedure for the transfer of assets which is carried out pursuant to commitments entered into by the parties to a concentration, the damage resulting from being excluded from that procedure consists in a loss of profits caused by the fact that those undertakings do not have access to a given market.

Since such damage is of a pecuniary nature, it cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable, or even reparable only with difficulty, if it may be the subject of subsequent financial compensation.

The suspension sought would be justified, in those circumstances, only if it appeared that, without such relief, the undertakings concerned would be in a situation liable to jeopardise their very existence or irreparably modify their market shares.

Furthermore, even if damage consisting principally in definitive exclusion from the divesting procedure at issue and in the impossibility of obtaining a share of a given market could constitute serious and irreparable damage, the balancing of, on the one hand, the interest of the undertakings concerned in obtaining the interim relief sought against, on the other, the public interest in implementation of decisions adopted under Regulation No 4064/89 and the interests of third parties who would be directly affected by any suspension of operation of the decision at issue must lead to dismissal of such an application.

( see paras 46-48, 51 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Commission decision refusing a legal person access to documents - Action by another legal person - Inadmissible

(Art. 230 EC, fourth para.; Commission Decision 94/90)

Summary

$$The admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is dependent upon the condition that the person concerned demonstrate a legal interest in bringing proceedings. Therefore, an annulment action by one legal person against a Commission decision addressed to another legal person, refusing the latter access to documents, is inadmissible.

( see paras 18, 22 )