ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure — Period for bringing proceedings — Time-barred — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Appeal — Notification of the contested judgment — Appellant lacking an address for service in Luxembourg — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(6); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(2))

Summary

No derogation from the application of the Community rules on procedural time-limits may be made save where the circumstances are quite exceptional, in the sense of being unforeseeable or amounting to force majeure , in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, since the strict application of those rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

In particular, if time-limits for bringing proceedings are to serve any purpose, the fact that one party takes the view that it does not have all the relevant information to assess whether or not it is appropriate to bring an appeal cannot by itself justify bringing an appeal out of time.

In order to calculate the time-limit within which an appeal may be brought, where the applicant does not have an address for service in Luxembourg for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, proper service of the contested judgment, under Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, must be deemed to have been effected by the lodging of the registered letter at the post office in Luxembourg. In any event, in accordance with Article 37(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading arrives at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Court will be taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings only on condition that the signed original of the pleading, accompanied by the annexes and copies requested, is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

see paras 10, 13, 16-18
Case C-224/03





Italian Republic

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Transition from the ECSC regime to the EC regime – Application for declaratory relief – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)»

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 December 2003 I - 0000

Summary of the Order
Operative part



Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby orders:

1. Cases C‑12/03 P-DEP and C‑13/03 P-DEP are joined for the purposes of the order.

2. The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the European Commission to Tetra Laval BV is fixed at EUR 124 000.
Case C-555/03

Magali Warbecq

v

Ryanair Ltd

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Charleroi)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 – Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters – Court or tribunal having the power under Article 68 EC to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling – Court lacking jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling)

Summary of the Order

References for a preliminary ruling – Jurisdiction of the Court – Measure adopted on the basis of Part Three, Title IV, of the Treaty – Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments – National courts and tribunals having the power to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling – Courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law

(Arts 61(c) EC and 68 EC; Council Regulation No 44/2001)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

State aid

–

Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market

–

National measure ordering repayment of the aid (Art. 87 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14) (see para. 38, operative part 2

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Commissione tributaria provinciale di Pordenone – Validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy (notified under document number C(2001) 3955) (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27).

Operative part

Operative part

1. Consideration of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Decision 2002/581/EC of 11 December 2001 on the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy;

2. Article 87 EC et seq., Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty and the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality cannot preclude a national measure ordering the recovery of aid pursuant to a Commission decision which has classified that aid as incompatible with the common market and consideration of which in the light of those same provisions and general principles has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect its validity.
Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Case C - 161/04,

ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 30 March 2004,

Republic of Austria, represented by H. Dossi and E. Riedl, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

v

European Parliament, represented by M. Gómez-Leal and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

and

Council of the European Union, represented by A. Lopes Sabino and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents,

defendants,

supported by

Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Wils and G. Braun, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

intervener,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT,

after hearing Advocate General Geelhoed,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1. By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 3 July 2006, the Republic of Austria informed the Court in accordance with Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure that it wished to withdraw its application.

2. By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 14 July 2006, the Parliament requested that the Court order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs pursuant to Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

3. The Council did not submit any observations on the withdrawal within the prescribed period.

4. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for by the other party in its observations on the discontinuance or withdrawal.

5. The Republic of Austria should therefore be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Parliament.

6. As it did not request that the Republic of Austria be ordered to pay the costs in that regard, the Council is to bear its own costs.

7. Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.

8. The Commission should therefore be ordered to bear its own costs.

Operative part

On those grounds, the President of the First Chamber of the Court hereby orders:

1. Case C-161/04 is removed from the register.

2. The Republic of Austria shall pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

3. The Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 6 September 2006.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 (European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Art. 3(1) and (11)) (see para. 29, operative part 1)

2. Environment – Packaging and packaging waste – Directive 94/62 (European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62) (see para. 37, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Landesgericht Korneuburg – Interpretation of Article 3 of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10) – Concepts of ‘producers of grouped, sales or transport packaging’ and ‘suppliers of packaging materials’ – Manufacturer of plastic carrier bags

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that Article 3(1) and (11) of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste must be interpreted as meaning that a manufacturer of packaging is not necessarily the party associating or bringing together goods and the product intended for packaging. A manufacturer of plastic carrier bags supplied to customers free of charge or for payment in shops must be considered a manufacturer of packaging;

2. Directive 94/62 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation, such as the Decree of the Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth and the Family seeking to avoid and recycle packaging waste and certain waste materials and to institute collection and recycling systems, which provides that the manufacturer of packaging, in particular plastic carrier bags, is either to take the bags back after use or to participate in a collection and recycling system for packaging waste, unless an economic operator intervening at a later stage of distribution takes over that obligation and the manufacturer obtains a valid declaration to that effect.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Arts 37(1), 38(3) and 58) (see paras 10-13

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 February 2005 in Case T-454/04 Correia de Matos v Commission , dismissing as manifestly inadmissible an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint made against the Portuguese Republic, concerning the refusal by the courts of that Member State to accept that an applicant may represent himself before them.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares the appeal brought by Mr Correia de Matos to be inadmissible.

2. Orders the case to be removed from the register of the Court.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Transport – Maritime transport – Freedom to provide services – Maritime cabotage (Council Regulation No 3577/92, Art. 6(3)) (see paras 18, 22, operative part 1)

2. Transport – Maritime transport – Safety rules and standards for passenger ships (Council Directive 98/18, Arts 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g)) (see paras 27-31, operative part 2)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Simvoulio tis Epikratias – Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 4 and 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7) – Ability of individuals to rely on the regulation to challenge the validity of a national rule adopted before the end of the exemption laid down by the regulation – Interpretation of Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1) – Compatibility of a national rule prohibiting the supply of maritime services in respect of ships having reached a specified age.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Having regard to Article 6(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), the latter must be interpreted as not conferring rights on individuals, before 1 January 2004, in the area of cabotage with the Greek islands for regular passenger and cargo services and services provided by vessels of less than 650 gross tonnes.

2. Articles 5(2) and 6(3)(a) to (c), (f) and (g) of Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger ships must be interpreted as precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits absolutely ships having reached a specified age from carrying out domestic voyages, when the Member State in question has not taken measures to improve safety requirements in accordance with the procedure laid down by Article 7(4) of that directive.
I-B-2  - 1ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
22 January 2007
Case C-373/05  P
Bart Nijs
v
Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(Appeal — Officials — Decision not to promote an official to Grade LA 5 — 
Previous complaint — Identity of subject-matter and legal basis — Appeal 
manifestly unfounded)
Full text in French   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-B-2 - 3
Appeal:  against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) 
of 26 May 2005 in Case T-377/04 Nij s v Court of Auditors , not 
published in the ECR, in which the Court of First Instance 
dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of the decision 
of the Court of Auditors not to promote the appellant to the post 
of translator-reviser (LA 5) in the 2003 promotion exercise .
Held:  The appeal is dismissed . Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs .
I-B-2  - 2Summary
Officials — Actions — Previous administrative complaint — None — Inadmissible
(Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(2))
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Whether admissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts – Excluded except in the case of disortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 17-18)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 20)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Contradictory reasoning – Whether admissible (see para. 25)

4. Procedure – Duty of the court to respect the context of the dispute as defined by the parties (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2005 in Case T-137/03 Mancini v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of medical officer at the ‘Medical Service – Brussels’ unit and of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 47, 69-70)

2. Appeals – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance – Inadmissibility – Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the Court of First Instance – Whether admissible (Art. 225(1), EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c)) (see paras 48-50)

3. Appeals – Grounds – Review by the Court of refusal by the Court of First Instance to order measures of inquiry – Scope (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 66(1)) (see paras 63-64)

4. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reason – Whether admissible (see para. 111)

Subject of the case

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 June 2005 in Case T-17/02 Olsen v Commission , in which the Court rejected the action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 relating to State aid file NN 48/2001 – Spain – Aid for the Transmediterránea shipping company (OJ 2002 C 96, p. 4).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Fred Olsen SA is ordered to pay the costs.

3. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2006 – Mancini v Commission

(Case C-172/05 P)

Appeal – Officials – Post of medical officer – Notice of vacancy – Comparative examination of merits – Composition of the selection board – Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded

1. Appeal – Grounds – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Whether admissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts – Excluded except in the case of disortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 17-18)

2. Procedure – Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings (Rules of Procedure of the Cour of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) (see para. 20)

3. Appeal – Grounds – Contradictory reasoning – Whether admissible (see para. 25)

4. Procedure – Duty of the court to respect the context of the dispute as defined by the parties (see para. 41)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 February 2005 in Case T-137/03 Mancini v Commission , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an application, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of medical officer at the ‘Medical Service – Brussels’ unit and of the decision to appoint another candidate to that post and, secondly, for damages.

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 November 2006 – ASAJA and Others v Council

(Case C-418/05 P)

Appeal – Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 – Action for annulment – Support scheme in the olive oil sector – Natural and legal persons – Not individually concerned

Appeal – Grounds – Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments submitted before the Court of First Instance – No identification of the error of law pleaded – Inadmissible (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c), first para. (see paras 21-23)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04 ASAJA and Others v Council , declaring inadmissible the actions for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48).

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs;
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 June 2005 in Case T-315/03

Wilfer

v

OHIM

by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision refusing to register the mark ‘ROCKBASS’ – Descriptive character of the trade mark.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Appeal

–

Grounds

–

Incorrect assessment of the facts

–

Inadmissibility

–

Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the facts before the Court of First Instance

–

Excluded except in the case of distortion of the facts (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58) (see paras 17-18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04 Soffass v OHIM , in which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘NICKY’ for goods in Class 15 against Decision R 699/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 16 July 2004, annulling the decision of the Opposition Division dismissing the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘NOKY’ and ‘noky’ for goods in Class 16.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Soffass SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Production before the Court of opinions of the legal services of national administrations – Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 45(2)(b))

Summary

It would be contrary to the public interest, which requires that national administrative authorities can receive the advice of their legal services, given in full independence, to allow such internal documents, if national legislation does not consider them public, to be produced in proceedings before the Court, unless production has been authorised by a competent authority of the Member State concerned or, where appropriate, ordered by the Court pursuant to Article 45(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure.

(see para. 19)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Preliminary rulings

–

Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 234 EC) (see paras 15-22

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Krajský súd v Prešove – Interpretation of Article 6 EU and Article 1 of the Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Paris on 20 March 1952 – Property law – National legislation under which electrical installations may be placed on private land without the owners being entitled to compensation.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Krajský súd v Prešove V by decisions of 2 May and 21 July 2006.
I-B-2  - 23ORDER OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber)
25 October 2007
Case C-495/06  P
Bart Nijs
v
Court of Auditors of the European Communities
(Appeals — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Staff report — 
Decision establishing the definitive version of the report — Decision to 
promote another official to the grade of Translator-reviser — Claim for 
compensation for damage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part 
manifestly unfounded)
Full text in French   .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . II-B-2 - 211
Appeal:  brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance 
(Second Chamber) of 3  October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Nij s v 
Court of Auditors ECR-SC I-A-2-195 and  II-A-2-999 in which 
the Court of First Instance dismissed — in so far as it relied on 
grounds other than a failure to give reasons — the action seeking, 
first, annulment of the decision establishing the definitive version of the appellant’s staff report for the 2003 reporting period, the decision allocating the appellant merit points for the 2003 reporting period and the decision not to promote him in 2004, 
and of the decision rejecting the complaint brought against those 
decisions and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm suffered
.
I-B-2  - 24SUMMARY — CASE C-495/06 P
Held:  The appeal is dismissed . Mr Nijs is ordered to pay the costs .
Summary
1. Appeals — Grounds — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by 
the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense 
of the e
vidence has been distorted
(
Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before 
the Court of First Instance — Inadmissible
(
Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the 
Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))