ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998. - Criminal proceedings against Italia Testa and Mario Modesti, intervener: Società Italiana degli Autori ed Editori (SIAE). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Pretura circondariale di Roma - Italy. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Joined cases C-128/97 and C-137/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-02181



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions raised without sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context - Questions raised in a context precluding a useful reply

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

In that respect the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but must also give the Governments of the Member States and interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.

It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

A request by a national court which fails to give sufficient details of the national legislative context of the questions which it has put to the Court and to state the precise reasons which prompted it to examine the compatibility with Community law of certain provisions of national law or the reasons why it considers an answer to those questions to be necessary for the resolution of the dispute before it is consequently manifestly inadmissible in so far as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Agreement concluded between certain Member States on charges for the use of roads - Exemption - Community directive authorising the conclusion of the agreement - Lack of effect - Reference by the agreement to definitions contained in the directive - Lack of effect in the case of a reference concerning the interpretation of a term not included in those definitions

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Council Directive 93/89)

Summary

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 concluded between the Governments of certain Member States on the levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles where the question referred concerns neither the interpretation of the Treaty nor the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community.

It is irrelevant in that regard that the preamble to the Agreement refers to Directive 93/89 on the application of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, which authorises two or more Member States to cooperate in introducing a common system for user charges, subject to certain conditions in addition to those governing the imposition of such charges where Member States act individually, since the mere fact that the directive authorises Member States to cooperate in that way is not enough to justify the view that an agreement concluded for that purpose forms an integral part of Community law whose interpretation falls within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Nor can such jurisdiction be inferred from the fact that the Agreement refers to certain definitions contained in the directive, inasmuch as those definitions do not include the term forming the subject-matter of the request for interpretation.
Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 1998. - Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention. - Case C-155/98 P-I.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04935



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Intervention - Staff actions - Intervention by an official in an action for annulment brought by another official - Admissibility - Conditions

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)

2 Procedure - Intervention - Interested persons - Dispute having a subject-matter similar to that of another dispute pending before the Court of First Instance - Refusal to grant leave to intervene - Breach of the right to a fair hearing - None

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)

Summary

1 In the case of an application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official, the concept of an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be construed as a direct interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.

An application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official against a classification decision concerning the latter is thus inadmissible.

2 Where an applicant to intervene is himself a party to an action before the Court of First Instance in which proceedings are stayed pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the case in respect of which he has applied for leave to intervene, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in that case, which involves a situation or arguments similar to his own, does not prejudice his right to a fair hearing.

The Court's decision in the case before it will not affect the rights which the applicant to intervene will be able to rely on in the case in which he is the applicant and in the context of which he will be able to put forward any arguments which he thinks fit in support of the pleas in law put forward in his application.
Summary



Summary

$$In proceedings before the Community courts, there is no rule or provision under which parties to proceedings are authorised to disclose or prevented from disclosing their own written submissions to third parties. Apart from exceptional cases where disclosure of a document might adversely affect the proper administration of justice, the principle is that parties are free to disclose their own written submissions without thereby infringing the principle of confidentiality.

( see para. 10 )
Order of the Court of 21 April 1999. - Marc Charreire (C-28/98) and Jean Hirtsmann (C-29/98) v Directeur des services fiscaux de la Moselle. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Thionville - France. - References for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Joined cases C-28/98 and C-29/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01963



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of questions referred - Where the order for reference gives no indication of the factual or legislative context and fails to give reasons justifying the reference to the Court

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

$$In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

The information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but must also make it possible for the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is for the Court to ensure that this possibility is safeguarded, given that, pursuant to the aforementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

Consequently, a reference from a national court for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible where it does not contain any information which satisfies the above requirements with respect to the factual and legal context of the dispute before the national court or the reasons for which that Court considers it necessary to refer certain questions to the Court of Justice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Institution must be called upon to act - Conditions - Request must be clear and precise

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, second para. (now Art. 232, second para., EC))

Summary

$$An action for failure to act is admissible only in so far as the applicant has duly followed the pre-litigation procedure, satisfying the essential procedural requirement of calling upon the institution concerned to act, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 232 EC). Such a request must be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision for the institution to have a clear idea of the content of the decision sought and to realise that the purpose of the request is to compel the institution to state a position. Those conditions are not satisfied in the case of a fax addressed by the applicant to the Commission, which gives no indication to that effect and in no way suggests that it is deemed to constitute a preliminary to legal proceedings, but on the contrary merely asks the Commission for certain information, such as the telephone and fax numbers of the officials and official bodies handling the matter, with whom the applicant - according to its own statements - wishes to make contact.
Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 1999. - Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities. - Application for interim measures - Structural funds - Financing of Community initiatives - Modification of indicative allocations. - Case C-107/99 R.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-04011



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Balancing of all the interests at stake - Discretion of the court hearing applications for interim measures

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea put forward for the first time at the stage of the appeal - Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118)

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Provision fixing the derived intervention price for white sugar for all areas in Italy in respect of a particular marketing year - Action brought by Italian sugar manufacturers - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para.j, EC); Council Regulation No 1534/95, Art. 1(f))

Summary

1. A plea put forward for the first time in an appeal to the Court 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, 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 Court's jurisdiction is thus confined to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance.

( see paras 52-53 )

2. The fact that it is possible to define more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies does not imply that the latter must be regarded as being individually concerned by that measure as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective situation of fact or of law defined by the measure in question.

Thus Article 1(f) of Regulation No 1534/95, which fixes the derived intervention price for sugar for all areas in Italy for the 1995/96 marketing year, is not of individual concern to Italian sugar manufacturers holding production quotas. First, the Council fixes the intervention prices for white sugar not on the basis of the individual data from each of the Italian manufacturers holding production quotas or by taking account of their specific situation, but on the basis of overall Italian sugar production data. Secondly, the classification of a given area as a deficit or surplus area, for which a derived intervention price and an intervention price respectively are fixed, is based ultimately on a comparison of the production and consumption forecast for the marketing year concerned. It follows that the information provided by the various Italian sugar manufacturers is only one factor in the overall data available to the Council and that the derived intervention price for white sugar is fixed in a general and abstract manner rather than on the basis of or taking into consideration the individual situation of each manufacturer.

( see paras 59, 62-63, 65 )
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of proceedings - Conditions - Application to the appeal procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 42(2) and 118)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Officials - Servants of the European Central Bank - Actions - Time-limits

(Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art. 36.2; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42; European Central Bank Staff Rules, Art. 8.2)

2. Appeals - Grounds - Plea raised for the first time in appeal proceedings - Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3. Appeals - Grounds - 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

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. It is clear from Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank that the Community judicature is to have jurisdiction in disputes between the European Central Bank and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the conditions of employment applicable to the servants of the European Central Bank. The conditions for bringing an action before the Community judicature, which are laid down in Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment and amplified in Article 8.2 of the Staff Rules, require, in particular, that actions be brought within two months.

( see paras 15-16 )

2. A plea in law put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice must be rejected 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 a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court's jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of the Court of First Instance on the pleas argued before it.

( see paras 22-23 )

3. It is clear from Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal is to be limited to points of law. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is revealed by the evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

( see para. 26 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Production in proceedings before the Court of the advice of the Community institutions' legal services - Conditions

Summary

$$It would be contrary to public policy, which requires that the institutions can receive the advice of their legal service, given in full independence, to allow such internal documents to be produced in proceedings before the Court unless such production has been authorised by the institution concerned or ordered by the Court.

( see para. 12 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of an act - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable harm - Applicant's interest in obtaining the suspension sought

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC)

Summary

$$The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of operation of an act or other interim measures only if it is established, inter alia, that such an order is urgent inasmuch as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Interim measures which would not serve to prevent the serious and irreparable harm feared by the applicant cannot a fortiori be necessary for that purpose. If the applicant does not have any interest in obtaining the interim measures sought, those measures cannot, therefore, satisfy the criterion of urgency.

The adoption of a final decision in a proceeding applying the competition rules has the effect of nullifying any interest the person concerned had in pursuing an application for interim measures, seeking the suspension of operation of an act under that proceeding and of the proceeding against it.

( see paras 22-25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals Grounds Mistaken assessment of the facts Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2. Applications for interim measures Suspension of operation of a measure Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine Conditions for granting Serious and irreparable damage Consideration of the objective interests of an association of undertakings in its survival independently of the interests of its members Interests of the association not independent of those of its members Excluded

(Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1. The findings of the judge hearing an application for interim measures as to the binding character of the decisions of an association of undertakings with regard to its members cannot be challenged on appeal. Under Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is to be limited to points of law and lies on grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant or the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance.

( see paras 38, 45 )

2. Where a dispute concerns an infringement of the competition rules brought about by the decision of an association of undertakings and where, in that context, it is found that the objective interests of the association are not independent of those of its member undertakings, the interest which the association has in surviving cannot be assessed by the judge hearing an application for suspension of the operation of a Commission decision imposing a fine on that association independently of the interest of those undertakings.

To hold otherwise would, in practice, result in systematically granting suspension of operation to any association of undertakings which brings proceedings for annulment of a Commission decision imposing a fine on it calculated by reference to the combined turnover of its member undertakings.

Such an approach cannot be endorsed, in particular in the very specific context of an application for exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition of the Commission's not immediately recovering a fine imposed by it. Such an application will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

Moreover, a mere unilateral refusal on the part of the members of that association of undertakings cannot suffice to preclude the members' financial situation from being taken into account. The extent of the alleged harm cannot depend on the unilateral intention of the members of the association which seeks suspension where the interests of the association and those of its members are merged.

( see paras 42-44, 46 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Review procedures – Appeal brought by the Office against a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the decision of a Board of Appeal which refused to register a sign as a Community trade mark – Withdrawal of the application for registration in the course of the proceedings – Dispute brought to an end – No need to adjudicate

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Summary

In an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance which annulled the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) refusing to register a sign as a Community trade mark, the withdrawal of the application for registration after delivery of the Advocate General’s Opinion does not render the appeal entirely devoid of purpose, since that withdrawal does not, in itself, have any impact on the judgment under appeal.

However, the withdrawal has the effect of bringing to an end the dispute concerning the refusal of registration of the sign in question as a Community trade mark, in so far as the parties coincide in the view that the dispute is now settled and in so far as the Office considers, in particular, that the withdrawal of the application for registration is ‘valid’ and considers that its claim for the judgment under appeal to be set aside no longer has any purpose. In those circumstances, it is no longer necessary to give judgment in the appeal.

(see paras 10-13, operative part)
Case C-158/01

Catherine Withers

v

Samantha Delaney and Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Circuit Court, County of Cork

‛Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law — Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers’

Order of the Court (First Chamber), 14 October 2002 I-8303

Summary of the Order

Approximation of laws — Civil liability insurance in respect of motor vehicles — Directives 72/166 and 84/5 — Extent of cover for third parties under compulsory insurance — Compulsory cover for personal injury to passengers who are members of the family of the insured person or of the driver — Conditions

(Council Directives 72/166 and 84/5)

Directive 71/166, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Directive 84/5, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, are to be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State from maintaining national legislation which does not require compulsory insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles to cover personal injuries to passengers carried in a part of the vehicle other than a large public-service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle was designed and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.

(see para. 22, operative part)