ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Dispute concerning the margin for manoeuvre of the Commission in fixing maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin - Application to intervene by an association representing the animal health industry - Whether admissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Council Regulation No 2377/90)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice the right to intervene in a case before the Court is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of the case. In particular, representative associations whose object is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members are allowed to intervene.

In a case raising questions of principle regarding the Commission's margin for manoeuvre under the Community procedure laid down by Regulation No 2377/90 for establishing maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, an association comprising national associations from the animal health industry in Europe and manufacturers of animal health products are able to establish such an interest inasmuch as the answer to those questions is of direct concern to the members of that association.
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-04943



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.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeal - Pleas in law - Pleas clearly inadmissible or unfounded - Dismissal

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c) and 119)
Order of the Court of 11 May 1999. - Philippe Anssens v Directeur des services fiscaux du Nord. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Lille - France. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible. - Case C-325/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-02969



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of questions - Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context - Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC); 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 this 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 also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC 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.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments raised before the Court of First Instance - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Order of the Court of 30 April 1999. - Franco Campoli v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Procedure - Time-limits - Starting-point - Notification - Concept - Inadmissibility. - Case C-7/99 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-02679



Keywords

Procedure - Appeals - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Notification - Date on which the judgment or order under appeal is received

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Question to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. International agreements - Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - GATT 1994 - Direct effect - None - Not possible to rely on the WTO agreements to contest the lawfulness of a Community act

(EC Treaty, Art. 234, first para. (now, after amendment, Art. 307 EC, first para.); General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994; Council Decision 94/800)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof - Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid - Adverse effect on the rights of the recipients

(Art. 242 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures - Conditions governing admissibility - Application - Procedural requirements - Statement of pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for the measures sought

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2))

Summary

1. In so far as concerns the urgency of an application for suspension of operation of a measure, it is for the party who pleads serious and irreparable damage to prove its existence. Although it is true that, in order to establish the existence of such damage, it is not necessary to require absolute proof that the damage would occur and is enough for it to be reasonably foreseeable, the fact remains that a party applying for interim relief is still required to prove the facts which are deemed to attest to the probability of serious and irreparable damage. That requirement is not fulfilled where that party merely makes general observations, without adducing any specific evidence in support of its claims.

An adverse effect on the rights of the persons considered to be the recipients of State aid which is incompatible with the common market forms an integral part of any Commission decision requiring the recovery of such aid and cannot be regarded as constituting in itself serious and irreparable damage, whether or not a specific assessment is made of the seriousness and irreparability of the precise prejudice alleged in each case considered.

( see paras 14-16, 21 )

2. An application for suspension of operation of a measure which simply refers to the action for annulment in the main proceedings and states that that action will probably succeed does not satisfy the requirements of Article 83(2) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, under which such an application must state, in particular, the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the suspension it is seeking. A mere reference to the application for annulment cannot compensate for the total lack of clarification of the reasons for the application for annulment which establish the prima facie validity of the application for suspension of operation.

( see paras 25-27 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Question the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3))

2. Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax - Economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive - Involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries - Included only in so far as it entails carrying out transactions which are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of that directive

(Council Directive 77/388, Arts 2 and 4(2))
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer capable of being clearly deduced from case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 404(3))

2. Approximation of laws - Procedure for the award of public service contracts - Directive 92/50 as amended by Directive 97/52 - Scope - Concession contract for public publishing services - Exclusion

(Council Directives 92/50 and 97/52)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of a measure - Interim relief - 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 23-26 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Driving licence — Directive 91/439 — Driving licence issued by the Member State of origin which cannot be registered in the registry of driving licences of the host Member State — Requirement to exchange licence — Not permissible — Fulfilment of the conditions for the renewal of licence in that State — Burden of proof on the holder of the licence — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Prohibited — Not applicable in a situation purely internal to a Member State — ( Council Directive 91/439, Art. 1)

Summary

Article 1(1) and (2) of Directive 91/439 on driving licences, as amended by Directive 96/47, setting out the principle of mutual recognition of Community model driving licences, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which requires, under certain circumstances, holders of driving licences issued by another Member State who are established in its territory to exchange that licence for a national driving licence on the ground that a driving licence issued by another Member State which does not comply with the provisions on the period of validity which apply in the host Member State cannot be registered in its register of driving licences.

It is for the holder of a driving licence issued by a Member State who takes up normal residence in another Member State which has exercised its discretion under Article 1(3) of Directive 91/439 to apply some of its national rules to prove that he fulfils the conditions set out in the legislation of the host Member State on the renewal of driving licences. However, once that has been proven, it is a matter for the authorities of the host Member State to give due effect thereto and authorise the holder to drive a vehicle under his original driving licence.

That conclusion is not affected by the fact that a Member State is prevented from requiring Community nationals who have their residence there to exchange their driving licences issued by another Member State for a national driving licence, while the holders of a national licence, who are primarily nationals of the host Member State, are required to exchange that licence periodically for a new one. Any discrimination which nationals of a Member State may suffer under the law of that State fall within the scope of that law and must therefore be dealt with within the framework of the internal legal system of that State.

see paras 35-37, operative part
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods or services — Aim — Requirement of free availability — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Appeals — Grounds — Review by the Court of Justice of the appraisal of the facts submitted to the Court of First Instance — Excluded — Sign applied for as a Community trade mark — (Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

1. By prohibiting the registration as a Community trade mark of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of the goods or services for which registration is sought, Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 pursues an aim which is in the general interest, namely that such signs or indications may be freely used by all. That provision accordingly precludes such signs or indications being reserved to a single undertaking as a result of the registration of the trade mark.

see paras 24-25

2. The Court of First Instance ' s assessment of the facts in an action for annulment brought against the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), which leads it to consider that a sign for which registration is sought " does not appear unusual for the relevant consumers" , is not a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice on appeal.

see paras 29-30
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure — Intervention — Persons having an interest — Territorial entity claiming to be affected by an aid scheme likely to attract undertakings to a neighbouring region — Admissibility dependent on whether there is a direct and present effect on that entity — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

2. Procedure — Intervention — Conditions governing admissibility — Indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarity of situations — Not admissible — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

Summary

1. Under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice an application to intervene is to be limited to supporting the forms of order sought by one of the parties.

An interest in the result of the case means a direct, present interest in seeing granted the form of order sought by the party whom the intervener wishes to support.

A territorial entity responsible for protecting the interests, particularly the financial interests, of a region that has submitted a complaint to the Commission, concerning an aid scheme from which an undertaking benefited when it relocated to a neighbouring area, has a direct and present interest in seeing granted the form of order sought by the Commission, asking the Court to uphold the judgment of the Court of First Instance dismissing the application for annulment of the decision declaring part of the aid in question incompatible. Owing to that geographical proximity, the aid scheme in question may have a direct and present effect on its economic situation either by causing the relocation of some undertakings or by adversely affecting the competitive position of other undertakings.

However, a territorial entity which seeks, conversely, to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the parties which have appealed against that judgment, could not claim that it has a direct and present interest, owing to its geographical proximity to the region to which the aid scheme is likely to attract undertakings, unless it could claim that the aid benefited its own economy.

see paras 6-7, 9-10, 17

2. An interest in the result of the case within the meaning of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice means a direct and present interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. It is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties.

In maintaining that the judgment to be given by the Court on the substantive questions raised might affect the decision which the Court of First Instance will be moved to take in a case concerning it by reason of such similarities, a territorial entity is claiming only an indirect interest in the result of the case. Its application to intervene must therefore be rejected.

see paras 14-16, 18
ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

27 February 2003

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Agriculture – Export refunds – Conditions for payment – Leaving the geographical territory of the Community – Definition))

and

THE COURT (First Chamber),

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Relevant provisions

3

4

5

6

7

8

1.

─ in the cases specified in Article 5, reached its destination unaltered, or

─ in other cases, left the geographical territory of the Community unaltered.

2.

─ products shall be considered to have left the geographical territory of the Community when they have left for territories which, although forming part of the geographical territory of a Member State, form part of the customs territory of a non-member country; conversely, products shall not be considered to have left the geographical territory of the Community if sent to a destination which, although forming part of the geographical territory of a non-member country, is incorporated in the customs territory of the Community,

─ the territory of the commune of Livigno shall be considered not to form part of the geographical territory of the Community,

─ the territories of the Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla shall be considered not to form part of the geographical territory of the Community,

─ deliveries of catering supplies to platforms as specified in Article 19b(1)(a) shall in all cases be considered to have left the geographical territory of the Community

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

R. Grass M. Wathelet
Case C-235/02





Criminal proceedings

against

Marco Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani





(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice per le indagini preliminari du Tribunale di Gela)

«(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Waste management – Definition of waste – Petroleum coke)»

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 15 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – National court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC – Judge investigating a criminal matter – Investigating magistrate

(Art. 234 EC)

2.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Interpretation of a directive in the course of criminal proceedings for infringement of the national legislation transposing it – Determination of the consequences of the subsequent decriminalisation of the offences – Excluded

(Art. 234 EC)

3.. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Obviously irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions in a context which precludes any useful answer – Questions not related to the subject-matter of the main proceedings

(Art. 234 EC)

4.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – Definition – Substance which has been discarded – Criteria of assessment

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Art. 1(a))

5.. Environment – Waste – Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156 – Definition – Substance which has been discarded – Exception – Petroleum coke produced in an oil refinery – Effective use of that substance to meet the energy needs of the refinery

(Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Act adopted on the basis of Title IV of Part III of the Treaty – Regulation No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement – National courts or tribunals which may make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on interpretation – Courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law

(Arts 62(2)(b)(i) EC and 68(1) EC; Council Regulation No 539/2001)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure — Action of a Member State for a declaration that the Commission has no power to adopt measures in the sectors covered by the ECSC Treaty after the expiry of that Treaty — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — (Art. 97 CS)

Summary

The Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognisance of an action brought by a Member State seeking a declaratory judgment that the Commission has no power, after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty, to adopt, in the sectors covered by that Treaty not forming the subject-matter of an agreement between the signatory States, measures temporarily to extend the period of application of that treaty so as to cover the transition from the ECSC regime to the EC regime, since such an application does not fall within any of the categories of action which the Court has jurisdiction to hear.

see paras 20-22