ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 7 March 1997. - Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention. - Case T-184/95.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00351



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by rules of Community law - Undertaking in a situation comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings but alleging different damage - Indirect interest in the result of the case - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

Summary

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 understood as a direct interest in the outcome of the application where, in the course of an action for damages, an application for leave to intervene is submitted by an undertaking whose interest consists in defending its own situation, which, although comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, is nevertheless different from it inasmuch as the rights which the two undertakings wish to assert against the Community concern different losses.

Consequently, in the context of an action for compensation for damage caused to an undertaking by a Community regulation, an application for leave to intervene by another undertaking which can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case, arising from a mere similarity between the situations in question, is inadmissible.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Action for annulment - Applicants' withdrawal - Conditions for the award of costs against the other party not satisfied

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials ° Actions ° Right to bring proceedings ° Persons claiming the status of official or of servant other than local servant ° Candidate for a post of chairman or member of the boards of appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

(EC Treaty, Art. 179; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

Article 179 of the Treaty, which confers on the Community judicature jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, must be construed as applying not only to persons who have the status of official or of servant other than local servant but also to persons claiming that status. Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, concerning appeals, apply not only to those who are officials but also to candidates for a post.

Where a candidate for a post of chairman or member of the boards of appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market brings proceedings, his action must therefore be based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations in so far as the dispute concerns his participation in the selection procedure, and not on Article 173 of the Treaty, which does not apply in such a case.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application for legal aid - Lodging of the application without the assistance of a lawyer subsequent to the initiation of proceedings by a lawyer - Admissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 94(2), second subpara.)

Summary

Under the second subparagraph of Article 94(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application for legal aid need not be made through a lawyer. That exemption applies not only where the application is made prior to the proceedings which the applicant wishes to commence, but also where it is made after the proceedings have been initiated by a lawyer.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action constituting, in reality, an action for performance of a contract - Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature - Action brought by a successful tenderer for the transport of food aid - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 181 and 183)

Summary

In the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction, when proceedings for annulment are brought before it on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty, to adjudicate on an action which, in reality, constitutes a claim for performance based in contract. For the Court to do so would be to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of which it may take cognizance, since that article specifically gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

Consequently, proceedings for annulment brought by a successful tenderer for the transport of food aid to third countries against the Commission's refusal to pay it the whole of the transportation price are manifestly inadmissible, since an application of that kind, although lodged on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty, constitutes, in reality, an action for performance of a contract concluded between the tenderer and the Commission for the transport of the supplies in issue.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 1996. - Pantochim SA v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Administrative procedure pending - Application for an interim order directing the Commission to require a Member State to modify the conditions for the grant of aid - Interim order involving a measure beyond the Commission's powers - Dismissal of the application. - Case T-107/96 R.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01361



Summary



Keywords

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Application for an order directing the Commission to require a Member State to modify the conditions for the grant of aid - Dismissal

(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93(2) and (3), and 186)

Summary

An application for interim measures seeking an order directing the Commission to require a Member State to extend to the applicant undertaking a duty-free scheme which, although not notified in advance by the Member State concerned, is being dealt with in a procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty, can only be dismissed since the measure sought is clearly beyond the powers conferred upon the Commission in relation to the administrative procedure provided for by Article 93(2) and is therefore contrary to the Community rules governing State aid. When, in such a procedure, the Commission finds that aid has been introduced without being notified to it in advance, as Article 93(3) of the Treaty requires, the only interim measure it can take is to direct the Member State concerned to suspend payment of the aid immediately and to provide it, within a period of time determined by it, with all the documents, information and data necessary for examining whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

Moreover, the Court must dismiss an application for the adoption of an interim measure which would have the same content and the same effects as the measure which, according to the applicant, the Commission has failed to adopt. It would not be consistent with the principles governing the distribution of powers between the various Community institutions, as intended by the authors of the Treaty, for the Community judicature to be able to require the Commission to accede to the request for interim measures submitted to it.

Similarly, since the measure sought would require the Court to assume the role of the Commission in assessing the alleged aid and judging whether it may need to be extended to the applicant before the Commission has taken any decision in the matter, the Court would not be addressing the measure sought to the Commission but to the Member State concerned.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 2 May 1997. - Automobiles Peugeot SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility. - Case T-90/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00663



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Letter forming part of the first stage of the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/810 - Preparatory act

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Decision 94/810, Art. 5)

2 Procedure - Action contesting a preparatory act - Adoption of a later measure - New fact permitting the form of order sought to be adjusted - No such fact

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

3 Any measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the 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 adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in principle a measure is actionable only if it definitively lays down the institution's position on the conclusion of that procedure, and is not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision.

No action lies against letters informing the applicant - in the context of the procedure laid down by Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/810 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in competition procedures before the Commission - that the Commission does not share its point of view regarding the information which it maintains is protected by business secrecy and that the Commission is ready to communicate to the complainants more information than the applicant wishes, and allowing the applicant time in which to submit its comments to the hearing officer.

4 Pursuant to Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an applicant must state the subject-matter of the dispute in the application and cannot seek new forms of order during the proceedings, thereby altering the subject-matter of the action. Where the initial application is directed against an interim step, it is inadmissible, by adjusting the form of order sought, to seek annulment of a final decision which has been adopted subsequently, that is, after the action was brought.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 February 1997. - Filippo de Jorio v Council of the European Union. - Allowances for members of the Economic and Social Committee - Action for annulment - Action for failure to act - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-64/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00127



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Actions for failure to act - Conditions of admissibility - Proper conduct of the pre-litigation procedure - Formal notice to the institution - Essential formal requirement - Need for the applicant to be the person who formulated the request to act

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

Summary

3 In accordance with Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, any application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and contain a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That information must be sufficiently clear and precise so as to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Community judicature to adjudicate upon the action, if necessary without any other information in support. In order to ensure legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, for an action to be admissible, the essential factual and legal elements on which it is based must appear, at least summarily, but in a coherent and comprehensible fashion, from the text of the application itself.

4 An action for failure to act brought under Article 175 of the EC Treaty is admissible only in so far as the applicant has duly followed the pre-litigation procedure by complying with the essential formal requirement of a request to act, within the meaning of the second paragraph of that article, addressed to the defendant institution. The action must, furthermore, be brought by the person who formulated that request.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 March 1999. - Confiserie du TECH SA and Biscuiterie Confiserie LOR SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 - Registration of geographical indications - "Turrón de Jijona" and "Turrón de Alicante" - Locus standi - Inadmissible. - Case T-114/96.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-00913



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation concerning the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 - Action brought by producers of `tourons' - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 189, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2081/92; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)

Summary

The action brought by `touron' producers established in France for annulment of Regulation No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 in so far as it registers the names `Jijona' and `Turrón de Alicante' as protected geographical indications, is inadmissible.

Regulation No 1107/96 is, by nature and by virtue of its sphere of application, of a legislative nature and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, since it applies to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract, in conferring on any undertaking whose products fulfil the prescribed geographical and qualitative requirements the right to market them under one of the names specified, and in denying that right to any undertaking whose products do not fulfil those conditions.

Although it is conceivable that, in certain circumstances, even a legislative measure applying to traders in general may be of individual concern to particular traders, that is not the position in the present case. The mere fact that the undertakings have used names such as `Jijona' or `Alicante' for the marketing of the `tourons' that they produce is not sufficient to distinguish them in the absence of any other evidence enabling it to be established that such use stems from a similar specific right which they acquired at national or Community level before the adoption of the contested regulation and which has been adversely affected by that regulation.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure remedied after initiation of the proceedings - Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 175)
Keywords

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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Acts of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation introducing an early marketing premium for veal - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., 177 and 189; Council Regulation No 2222/96, Art. 1(4))

Summary

An action for annulment brought by veal producers operating in a Member State against Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2222/96 providing for an early marketing premium for veal to be granted on the slaughter of calves whose slaughter weight is not more than the average slaughter weight of calves in the Member State concerned, less 15%, must be dismissed as inadmissible.

First, that provision is, by reason of its nature and its scope of application, of a legislative character, and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty. Second, whilst it is true that under certain circumstances, a provision of a legislative act applicable to the traders concerned in general, may be of individual concern to some of them, that is not so where the applicants are in the same situation as all other traders bringing calves to slaughter in the Member State concerned, so that the provision concerns them only by reason of their objective status of traders active in the sector contemplated by the regulation, in the same way as any other trader carrying on the same activity.

Finally, it is always possible that a trader may challenge the validity of a contested regulation in an action brought before the courts of that Member State against the decision of the competent State authority on his application for a premium and such proceedings will then be liable to give rise to a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity, pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty.
61997B0172(01)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 28 January 1998. - Camar Srl v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for the allocation of additional import licences - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Action for damages - No need to adjudicate - Removal from the Register. - Case T-172/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00077
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 June 1998. - Sofivo Sas, Sofivo production Sas, Sovinor Sas, Denkavit France SARL, Sobeval viande SA, Serval SA, Besnier industrie SNC, Sovida SA, Ouest élevage SICA, Guinde SA, Tabouriech SA, Mamellor SARL, Coopagri Bretagne, Collet et compagnie SA, Kermené SA and Vals SA v Council of the European Union. - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Beef and veal - Intervention mechanisms - Premium for the early marketing of veal calves - Average slaughter weight - Criteria for fixing the same - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Joined cases T-14/97 and T-15/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02601



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Acts of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation introducing an early marketing premium for veal - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., 177 and 189; Council Regulation No 2222/96, Art. 1(4))

Summary

An action for annulment brought by veal producers operating in a Member State against Article 1(4) of Regulation No 2222/96 providing for an early marketing premium for veal to be granted on the slaughter of calves whose slaughter weight is not more than the average slaughter weight of calves in the Member State concerned, less 15%, must be dismissed as inadmissible.

First, that provision is, by reason of its nature and its scope of application, of a legislative character, and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty. Second, whilst it is true that under certain circumstances, a provision of a legislative act applicable to the traders concerned in general, may be of individual concern to some of them, that is not so where the applicants are in the same situation as all other traders bringing calves to slaughter in the Member State concerned, so that the provision concerns them only by reason of their objective status of traders active in the sector contemplated by the regulation, in the same way as any other trader carrying on the same activity.

Finally, it is always possible that a trader may challenge the validity of a contested regulation in an action brought before the courts of that Member State against the decision of the competent State authority on his application for a premium and such proceedings will then be liable to give rise to a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity, pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 April 1999. - Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissibility. - Case T-311/97.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01407



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.)

Summary

An action brought under Article 175 of the Treaty 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 that provision. This it must have done with sufficient clarity and precision for the institution to have a clear idea of the content of the decision sought and to take cognisance of that fact that the applicant intends to compel it to state a position. Although there is no need, at the pre-litigation stage of such an action, to satisfy excessively stringent conditions as regards evidence that essential procedural requirements have been observed, a request merely that the institution provide certain information so that the applicant can take action itself is not sufficient.