ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof

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

Summary

$$The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of an act to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind.

In order be able to determine whether the damage which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, disapplying the contested decision, the judge hearing the application must have hard evidence allowing him to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail.

( see paras 42-43 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 March 2006 − Service station Veger v Commission

(Case T-238/99)

Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Action manifestly inadmissible

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)

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

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

30 March 2000

Case T-12/00

Ezio Crestaz

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Non-admission to competition — Incomplete candidature file — Action manifestly unfounded in law’

Full text in Italian II-289

Application for:

annulment of the selection committee's decision of 22 October 1999 not to admit the applicant to the tests in special recruitment procedure COM/RA/01/1999.

Held:

The application is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Competition — Competition based on qualifications and tests — Conditions of admission — Production of qualifications for the purpose of admission to the tests — Obligation on candidates in the terms of the notice of competition — Scope — Participation in previous competitions — No effect Officials — Competition — Special procedure for the recruitment of temporary staff — Conditions of admission — Evidence showing professional experience — Discrimination — Absence
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

31 July 2000

Case T-43/00

Javier Martinez Lara and Milva Urban Peñón

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Full text in French II-753

Application for:

annulment of, first, the decisions of 27 November 1998 of the selection board for Internal Council Competition B/260 not to include the applicants on the list of suitable candidates and, second, the decision of the Secretary-General of the Council of 28 July 1999 not to reclassify the competition.

Held:

Application dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Action — Act adversely affecting an official — Confirmatory act — Exclusion — Request for internal competition to be reclassified

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An act cannot be described as adversely affecting an official if it contains no new factor as compared with a previous measure and has not therefore replaced it. Such an act is not open to challenge.

In that respect, a request for the reclassification of an internal competition for passage from one category to another, submitted by officials who had been successful but who had not been included in the list of suitable candidates on account of the limited number of posts which the competition was intended to fill, can have no other purpose, as far as they are concerned, than to enable their names to be included on the list. Accordingly, the rejection by the appointing authority of such a request merely confirms the decision not to include them in the list and consequently constitutes a confirmatory act.

(see para. 23)

See: T-82/92 Cortes Jimenez and Others v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-237, para. 14; Case T-40/98 Pagliarani v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-515 and II-1555, para. 28
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

15 May 2000

Case T-101/00 R

Miguel Angel Martin de Pablos

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Competitions — Non-admission to the tests — Interim measures — Suspension of the competition procedure’

Full text in Spanish II-347

Application for:

an interim order suspending the procedure in Competition COM/A/11/98.

Held:

The application for interim measures is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Absence — Suspension of the procedure in an open competition — Dismissed

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

The purpose of proceedings for interim relief is to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment on the merits of the case. In order to achieve that objective, the measures sought must be urgent in the sense that it is necessary, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the interests of the applicant, that they be ordered and take effect before the main decision.

The rights of a candidate who has not been admitted to a test in an open competition held in order to draw up a reserve list for recruitment and who submits an application for interim measures ordering suspension of the competition procedure are adequately protected provided that, if the Community judicature recognises the merits of the applicant's main action for annulment of the decision of the selection board refusing to admit him to the test, the appointing authority reopens the competition as far as the candidate in question is concerned. Consequently, continuing with such a recruitment procedure does not risk causing serious and irreparable harm to such a candidate.

(see paras 10 and 21 to 23)

See: T-32/89 and T-39/89 Marcopoulos v Court of Justice [1990] ECR II-281, para. 44; C-242/90 P Commission v Albani and Others [1993] ECR I-3839, paras 13 and 17; C-254/95 PR Parliament v Innamorati [1995] ECRI-2707, para. 18; C-65/99 P(R) [1999] ECR I-1857, para. 62
Article 236 EC, 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, must be construed as applying exclusively to persons who have the status of official or of servant other than local staff and 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 or for an open competition.

Persons who have applied to enter open competitions must be regarded as persons to whom the Staff Regulations apply for the purposes of Articles 90 and 91 thereof. They must therefore bring their actions, not on the basis of Article 230 EC, but on that of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations since they are challenging the lawfulness of the notice of competition in so far as that notice prevents them from taking part in the competition.

(see paras 26-28)

See: C-126/90 P Bocos Viciano v Commission [1991] ECR I-781, para. 13; T-37/93 Stagakis v Parliament [1994] ECRSC I-A-137 and II-451, para. 16; T-30/96 Gomes de Sá Pereira v Council [1996] ECR II-785, para. 24; T-61/96 Meoro Avilés v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-443 and II-1289, paras 40 and 41
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-24)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-27)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation 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 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R, while themselves all remaining joined, to be separated from the other cases referred to in the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008;

2. Rejects the applications for interim measures;

3. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Acts adopted by the Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties - Definition - Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on relations between the Parliament and the Commission - Excluded

(Arts 197, third para., EC and 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

$$Measures that produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by significantly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment under Article 230 EC may be brought.

It is apparent from the provisions of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on relations between the Parliament and the Commission that the aim of the agreement is not to limit the right of Members of the Parliament individually to put questions to the Commission, but merely to enable the Parliament to exercise wider powers of scrutiny over the Commission's activities by obtaining from that institution confidential information, the communication of which had not previously been regulated. The fact that the Framework Agreement provides that certain information may be supplied only to the parliamentary bodies referred to in point 1.4 of Annex 3 does not deprive Members of the Parliament, acting individually, of their right to put questions to the Commission and receive from that institution replies involving, where necessary, the forwarding of confidential information, as was the case before the adoption of the Framework Agreement. In that respect, the Commission's discretion in deciding whether to communicate confidential information in its reply to a question put by a Member of the Parliament acting individually, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 197 EC and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, is not governed, even indirectly, by the Framework Agreement. The Framework Agreement provides for an additional mechanism, distinct from that concerning the right of Members of the Parliament to put questions to the Commission under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC, and permits, contrary to what would have been the case before the adoption of the Framework Agreement, the forwarding of confidential information to certain parliamentary bodies. In effect, where a request for confidential information comes from one of the bodies referred to in point 1.4 of Annex 3 to the Framework Agreement, the forwarding of that information by the Commission is henceforth governed by the provisions of the Framework Agreement.

It follows that the Framework Agreement, which is limited to governing relations between the Commission and the Parliament, does not alter the legal position of Members of the Parliament, acting individually, as regards their right under the third paragraph of Article 197 EC and does not impair that right, which is guaranteed by that provision.

( see paras 57, 59-62 )
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 20, 41-42, 44 )
The time-limits, prescribed by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, of three months for lodging a complaint against an act adversely affecting an official and three months for bringing an action following an express or implied decision rejecting the complaint are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since they were established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain.

However, it is for the party alleging that a period has been exceeded to adduce proof of the date from which that period started to run, the absence of which cannot be compensated for by a series of circumstantial factors suggesting that a letter was received by the applicant on a date earlier than that alleged by him.

(see paras 22, 25-27)

See: T-1/90 Mérez-Mínguez Casariego v Commission [1991] ECR II-143, para. 37
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Action really concerning a contractual dispute — Lack of jurisdiction of Community judicature — Clearly inadmissible — (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249 EC)

Summary

Commission letters which form part of a purely contractual context from which they are inseparable are, by their very nature, not among the measures covered by Article 249 EC, annulment of which may be sought before the Community judicature pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. Consequently, an action seeking annulment of such measures is inadmissible.

see paras 53-54
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

1 August 2003

((Proceedings for interim measures – State aid – Obligation to recover aid – Prima facie case – Urgency – Weighing-up of interests – Exceptional circumstances – Provisional suspension))

applicant,

v

defendant,

intervener,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Registrar: H. Jung, makes the following

Order

Facts and proceedings

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

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

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

1.

2.

3.

H. Jung B. Vesterdorf
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Action challenging a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit — Inadmissible — Concept of confirmatory decision — (Art. 230 EC)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Community judicature — Claims seeking the issue of directions to an institution — Inadmissible — (Arts 230 EC and 233 EC)

3. Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Concept — Matters to be taken into consideration — Costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman — Not included — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

Summary

1. An action for annulment brought against a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision not challenged in due time is inadmissible. A decision is a mere confirmation of an earlier decision where it contains no new factors as compared with the earlier measure and is not preceded by any re-examination of the situation of the person to whom the earlier measure was addressed.

In this connection, the Commission ' s refusal, in a decision rejecting an application by a non-governmental organisation to sign a framework partnership agreement with the European Community Humanitarian Office, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against members of the institution ' s staff cannot constitute a new factor. That refusal is clearly separate from the decision to reject the application to sign the framework partnership agreement. To adopt a contrary approach would be tantamount to accepting that an undertaking could, by simply requesting that disciplinary proceedings be pursued against members of staff of the institution responsible for a decision, extend the time-limit for bringing an action for annulment of that decision.

see paras 36, 41-42

2. The Court may not issue directions to the Community institutions or assume the role assigned to them.

In an action for annulment founded on Article 230 EC, the jurisdiction of the Community judicature is limited to reviewing the legality of the contested measure. If it concludes that the measure is unlawful, it annuls it. It is then for the institution concerned to adopt, in accordance with Article 233 EC, the necessary measures to comply with the judgment annulling that measure.

see paras 48-49

3. Under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, " expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers" are to be regarded as recoverable costs. It follows from that provision that recoverable costs are limited to expenses which have been incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and were necessary for that purpose. By " proceedings" the provision refers only to proceedings before the Court of First Instance. Applicants therefore cannot in any event obtain, in an action for annulment, reimbursement by the Commission of the costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman.

see para. 51
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

31 March 2003

Case T-226/02

André Hecq

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Action for annulment — Act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-563

Application for:

the annulment of the Commission decision of 15 June 2001 approving the agreement between Vice-President Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations of the Commission concerning the resources available to staff representatives and the rules on the resources available to staff representatives from 1 January 2002.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Decision of an institution establishing rules on the resources available to staff representatives — Exclusion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1))

The existence of an act adversely affecting an official within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is an essential condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed. Only measures giving rise to binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant's interests by significantly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions which can be the subject of an action for annulment.

Rules adopted by a decision of an institution concerning the resources made available to staff representatives which merely establish a general framework for the distribution of those resources, do not give rise, for each official taken individually, to any obligation or to any right.

Such a decision accordingly does not adversely affect the leader of a trade union whose secondment for that purpose was interrupted following its adoption, where that interruption is not the direct and immediate result of the decision, but has to do with the fact that his trade union decided not to sign the agreement with the trade unions from which the decision stemmed.

Nor does the decision adversely affect that leader in terms of its indirect effects, namely the elimination of the post of secretary made available to the trade union and of the budget allocated for that post, since those consequences do not affect his legal position as an official, but the legal position of the organisation to which he belongs.

(see paras 16. 23-24. 27)

See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission [1969] ECR 505. paras 4 to 7; 17/78 Deshormes v Commission [1979] ECR 189, para. 10; T-20/92 Moat v Commission 11993] ECR II-799. para. 39; T-391/945 Baiwir v Commission [1996| ECRSC I-A-269 and II-787. para. 34; T-293/94 Vela Palacios v ESC [1996] ECRSC I-A-305 and II-893. para. 22