ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

29 April 2002

Case T-68/98

Stefan Jung

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Request for review of classification in grade — Action — New fact — Reasonable period — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-251

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 17 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's request for review of his classification in grade.

Held:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior complaint through official channels — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — Expiry — Reopening — Condition — New fact — To be put forward within a reasonable period

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An action brought by an official before the Court of First Instance must be held to be inadmissible if the pre-litigation procedure has not followed its proper course. In that respect, the time-limits prescribed in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, being designed to ensure legal certainty, are a matter of public policy and are binding on the parties and the Court. An official cannot therefore revive for himself a right of appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry of the abovementioned time-limits by submitting a request to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. The existence of a new and substantive fact may, however, justify the submission of a request for the reexamination of such a decision. In order to be able to rely effectively on such a fact, it is for the official to submit his request through official channels within a reasonable period. Whether such a period is reasonable must be determined when it has ended, that is to say, on the day when the request is submitted.

(see paras 38-39, 41,43)

See: 231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; T-34/91 Whitehead v Commission [1992] ECR II-1723, para. 18; T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECRSC I-A-201 and II-651, para. 20; T-112/94 Moat v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-37 and II-135, para. 25; T-202/97 Koopman v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-163 and II-511, para. 24; T-42/97 Lebedef v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-371 and II-1071, para. 25; T-192/99 Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II-813, para. 52
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for damages - Limitation period - Starting point - Applicant considering, when it lodges its application, that it does not have all the evidence to show that the Community is liable - No effect

(EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44)

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); EAEC Treaty, Arts 146 and 148; EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44)

Summary

1. The case-law according to which the limitation period for actions for damages cannot begin to run until all the conditions governing the obligation to pay compensation have been satisfied seeks to establish the criterion that, if the liability of the Community has its origin in a legislative measure, the damage which is the subject-matter of a claim for compensation must have materialised. In that situation, therefore, the limitation period cannot begin to run until the harmful effects of that measure have occurred. Therefore, far from rejecting the decisive criterion, laid down in Article 44 of the EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, of occurrence of the act giving rise to the damage, that case-law, in essence, merely defines the parameters of that criterion in a situation in which an action for compensation is brought in respect of damage which the applicants may suffer as a consequence of the implementation of a legislative measure adopted at Community level. In any event, the fact that an applicant may have considered, when it sent its request for compensation, that it did not yet have all the evidence it needed to prove to the requisite legal standard in judicial proceedings that the Community was liable could not, as such, prevent the limitation period from running. If that were the case, a confusion would arise between the procedural criterion relating to the commencement of the limitation period and the finding that the conditions for liability were satisfied, which can ultimately be made only by the court before which the matter has been brought for final adjudication on its substance.

( see paras 23-24 )

2. Under Article 44 of the EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, the limitation period in respect of an action for damages against the Community is interrupted either by the application made to the Community Court, 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), which correspond to Articles 146 and 148 of the EAEC Treaty.

( see para. 25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Fact that the Commission or the European Investment Bank did not initiate infringement proceedings - Not unlawful - Claim for damages - Manifestly inadmissible

(Arts 226 EC, 237(a) EC and 288 EC)

Summary

$$The fact that the Commission, and by analogy the European Investment Bank, has not instituted infringment proceedings is not unlawful, and thus it cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of either the Commission or the Bank. Accordingly, claims for compensation which are really seeking to complain that the Commission and the EIB have failed to institute infringement proceedings against a Member State are manifestly inadmissible.

( see para. 13 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements (Art. 230 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see paras 28, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 20 September 2005 − Makro Cash & Carry Nederland v Commission

(Case T-258/99)

State aid – Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid – Service stations – Risk of cumulation of aid – Aid covered by the notice – Interest in bringing proceedings

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for a vested and current interest – Commission decision holding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its abolition – Recipient relieved of obligation to repay by the application of the de minimis rule (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 35-40)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
The court hearing an application for interim measures does not have jurisdiction to order enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance. Under Articles 244 EC and 256 EC, enforcement of such a judgment is governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the State in the territory in which it is carried out. It is for the party concerned to request the competent national authority to append the order for enforcement to the judgment and then to bring the matter directly before the competent authority in accordance with the applicable national legislation.

It is not for the court hearing an application for interim measures to give a declaratory interpretation of the operative part of a judgment of the Court of First Instance. If, before enforcement of the judgment, one of the parties concerned is of the opinion that the judgment raises doubts as to its interpretation or if there is disagreement as to its interpretation, the party or parties may, pursuant to Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure, apply to the Court of First Instance for such an interpretation. If, following the adoption of the measures needed to enforce the judgment, there is disagreement between the parties as to whether or not the judgment has been properly enforced, that may provide material for a fresh action before the Court of First Instance.

(see para. 11)

See: T-22/91 INT Raiola-Denit and Others v Council [1993] ECR II-817
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on the application of Article 81(3) EC to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices - Action brought by an association representing the interests of regional associations of garage owners and other operators active in that sector - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2790/1999)

Summary

$$Natural or legal persons can be considered to be individually concerned by a measure of general application only if the measure in question affects them because of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons.

Applications may be declared admissible when made by associations representing the interests of their members who would themselves be entitled to act.

An association whose aim is to safeguard the interests of regional associations of garage owners, in the broad sense of the term, and those of members of those associations, who are bound by vertical agreements falling within the scope of Regulation No 2790/1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, or economic operators active in the same sector and also bound by such vertical agreements, cannot be considered to be individually concerned by that regulation.

The exemption granted by that regulation, which prevents application of Article 81(1) EC and, consequently, of the penalty of invalidity established by Article 81(2) EC, affects the said members of the association and operators in their objective capacity as economic operators bound by vertical agreements, in the same way as all the other operators who are party to such agreements.

Moreover, the state of economic dependence of that association and its members on large suppliers is not such as to differentiate them from all other economic operators.

( see paras 15-18 )
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

22 May 2000

Case T-51/00

Mario Costacurta

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-425

Application for:

annulment of a number of decisions relating to the applicant's assignment to the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation laying down a procedure for notifying and evaluating active substances on the plant protection product market - Action brought by undertakings marketing plant protection products containing active substances and an association to which they belong - Inadmissibility

establishing a not

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 451/2000; Council Directive 91/414)

Summary

$$Undertakings marketing plant protection products containing active substances cannot be considered to be individually concerned by Regulation No 451/2000 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 in that it lays down the procedure for notifying and evaluating a certain number of active substances. First, since, in the majority of Member States economic operators have to be holders of an authorisation to place products on the market in order to be able to market plant protection products containing active substances, the fact of holding such an authorisation does not constitute a particular attribute or a specific factual situation of a nature such as to identify the applicants individually in a manner similar to that in which the addresses of a decision would be identified. Secondly, the fact that certain operators are more affected by a measure than their competitors is not sufficient for them to be regarded as individually concerned by the measure.

Similarly, an association of such undertakings cannot validly plead the existence of an individual interest of its own that is distinct from that of its members as a basis for its standing to bring proceedings. Neither Article 43 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 37 EC), which served as the legal basis for the adoption of Directive 91/414, nor the Directive itself provides for the intervention of individuals in the adoption of the legislation in question. The Commission was therefore not required to consult or hear the applicants in the process of adopting the contested regulation. Moreover, neither the process of preparation of legislative measures nor those measures themselves, as measures of general application, require, by virtue of the general principles of Community law, such as the right to be heard, the participation of the persons affected, since their interests are deemed to be represented by the political organs called on to adopt those measures

( see paras 68, 70, 72, 77-78, 80 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. 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))

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of a Commission regulation on the first phase of a programme of work concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Balancing all the interests involved

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Commission Regulation No 1896/2000)

Summary

1. While it is true that, in principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case, it may nevertheless appear necessary, when it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

( see para. 73 )

2. The purpose of the procedure for interim measures is to ensure that the judgment in the main action may be given full effect. In order to attain that objective, the measures sought must be urgent, in the sense that it is necessary, in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the applicant, that those measures be ordered and that they produce their effects before judgment is given in the main proceedings. Damage of a purely pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation. According to those principles, the suspension of operation of Regulation No 1896/2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market would be justifiable only if it appeared that, failing such a measure, the applicant undertaking would find itself in a situation likely to jeopardise its very existence or to impair its market share irreversibly. Moreover, a finding that interim measures are urgently required cannot be based on an attitude observed by the applicant; it must be based only on the actual effects of the measure contested.

In any event, even if the applicant had sufficiently established that it would suffer serious and irreparable damage if operation of the regulation in question were not suspended, the balance of, on the one hand, the applicant's interest in obtaining the interim relief sought and, on the other, the public interest in implementation of a legislative measure and the interests of third parties directly affected by suspension of the regulation at issue inclines in favour of the application for interim relief being dismissed.

( see paras 92, 94-95, 101, 111 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Action against the Ombudsman and the Parliament for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Ombudsman's conduct - Action against the Parliament - Inadmissibility

(Art. 195(3) EC)

Summary

$$An action brought against the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Ombudsman's conduct when dealing with a complaint must be held inadmissible in so far as it is brought against the Parliament. It is clear from Article 195(3) EC that the Parliament has no legal possibility of influencing the conduct of the Ombudsman in respect of the complaint, so that any wrongful acts or omissions by the Ombudsman in performing the tasks assigned to him under the Treaty cannot in any event be imputed to the Parliament.

( see paras 15-19 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility — Extent of its discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-22)

2. State aid — Concept — Measures intended to compensate for structural disadvantages borne by undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Adverse effect on competition — State measures seeking to approximate the conditions of competition, in a certain economic sector, with those prevailing in other Member States — Not permissible (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 29, 30)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Limits (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 31, 32, 35)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme in its general characteristics — Lawfulness — Low amount of aid and exercise of activities of undertakings beneficial at the local level — Aid capable of affecting intra-Community trade and causing a distortion of competition — Irrelevant (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 35-37)

5. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for the development of particular areas — Exclusion of operating aid save in exceptional circumstances — No infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and legal certainty (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 48-50)

6. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Obligation of the Commission sufficiently to monitor the individual situation of each beneficiary — Possibility of leaving to the national authorities the task of determining without excessive difficulty the undertakings concerned (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 57, 61)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. The Unione degli industriali della provincia di Venezia (Unindustria), the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivire’, Siram SpA, Fiorital Srl, Jesurum di M. e A. Levi Morenos Sas, Grafiche Veneziane Srl, Cantiere navale De Poli SpA, Aive Srl, Bortoli Ettore Srl, Tessuti Artistici Fortuny SpA, Lorenzo Rubelli SpA, Tecnomare SpA and Arsenale Venezia SpA, in addition to bearing their own costs, are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions governing admissibility - Main action prima facie admissible - Irrelevant - Limits - Application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the abandonment of a proceeding in application of Article 81 EC against other undertakings and suspension of the proceeding against itself - Inadmissible

(Arts 81 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

$$In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application must not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures so as not to prejudge the substance of that case. Where, however, it is contended that the main application from which the application for interim measures is derived is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish the existence of certain factors which would justify the prima facie conclusion that the main application is admissible.

In the absence of serious evidence enabling the Court to consider that the main application is admissible, an application for interim measures seeking, first, suspension of the operation of a Commission decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the abandonment of a proceeding in application of Article 81 EC against other undertakings and, second, suspension of the proceeding against itself, must be declared inadmissible.

As to the first head of the application, a decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the abandonment of a proceeding against other undertakings, is not capable of producing legal effects of such a nature as to affect the applicant's interests immediately, before any decision finding an infringement of Article 81(1) EC and possibly imposing a penalty on it is adopted.

As to the second head of the application, the judge hearing an application for interim relief cannot in principle accede to a request for interim measures seeking to prevent the Commission from exercising its powers of investigation after the opening of an administrative procedure and even before it has adopted the definitive acts whose operation is sought to be avoided. If such measures were adopted, the judge hearing the interim application would not be reviewing the activity of the defendant institution but assuming the role of that institution in the exercise of purely administrative powers. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to request under Articles 242 EC and 243 EC that the defendant institution be prohibited, even provisionally, from exercising its powers in the course of an administrative procedure. Such an entitlement could only be recognised if the application were to present evidence from which the judge hearing the interim application could find that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the adoption of the measures requested.

( see paras 24, 51-52, 54 )