ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions for admissibility ° Admissibility of the main application ° Not relevant ° Limits

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures ° Amendment of a claim in the course of the proceedings ° Enlargement of the scope of the measure applied for ° Not permissible

3. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions for admissibility ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Claim to prolong a measure granting extension whose annulment is sought in the main proceedings

(EC Treaty, Art. 185)

4. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Financial damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. Although the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case, none the less, if the manifest inadmissibility of the main action is pleaded, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to establish that the main application reveals prima facie grounds for concluding that there is a certain probability that it is admissible.

2. The judge hearing the application for interim measures cannot grant a request by the applicant in the course of the proceedings which, although ostensibly seeking to restrict the subject-matter of the claim, seeks in fact to extend the scope of the measure initially sought.

3. An application for an interim measure is in principle admissible only if it falls within the scope of the final decision which the Court is capable of making. That is not the case where an application for suspension seeks to prolong a measure granting extension that is itself the subject-matter of the main action for annulment.

4. The requirement for granting suspension that there should be a risk of serious and irreparable damage is not satisfied where the applicant undertaking merely alleges purely financial damage without producing any prima facie evidence that the damage would be such as to threaten its survival and could not therefore be fully compensated for in the event of the main action succeeding.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment ° Actions directed against a regulation finding that a price undertaking had been breached and imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty ° Subsequent adoption of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty ° Consequences for a party' s interest in bringing proceedings

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 2423/88, Art. 10(6))

Summary

When the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duty have been collected in their entirety under the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty an importer who has had to pay those duties may place no reliance on any legal effect arising out of the provisional regulation, so that, in principle, he has no further interest in contesting the provisional regulation.

The fact that the provisional regulation in question finds that the importer has breached its price undertaking and terminates it is not of such a nature as to establish that importer' s interest in pursuing the annulment of that regulation.

The Commission' s role forms an integral part of the Council' s decision-making process. It follows from the provisions of the basic anti-dumping Regulation No 2423/88 that the Commission is responsible for carrying out investigations and for deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or, on the other hand, to continue them by adopting provisional measures and by proposing that the Council adopt definitive measures. However, it is for the Council to take a final decision and it may refrain from taking any decision at all if it disagrees with the Commission or, on the other hand, it may adopt a decision on the basis of the latter' s proposal.

Consequently, the Commission' s rejection of a proposed undertaking is not a measure having binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the interests of the importer in question, since the Commission may revoke its decision or the Council may decide not to introduce an anti-dumping duty; but rather, it constitutes an intermediate measure whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision, and not a measure which may be challenged.

Similarly, the fact that Article 10(6) of Regulation No 2423/88 confers, at least expressly, only on the Commission the power to decide whether an undertaking has been breached, is not of such a nature as to make a decision to terminate an undertaking a measure which may be challenged.

In any event, a decision to terminate an undertaking has, in principle, the same consequences for the traders concerned as a decision to refuse a proposed undertaking, that is to say, the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty. In both cases, the decision concerned is merely an intermediary measure whose purpose is to prepare for the Council' s definitive decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Admissibility of the main action ° Not relevant ° Limits

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Pecuniary damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. The issue of the admissibility of the main action should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures but should be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. To decide on admissibility at the stage of the application for interim measures, in cases where it is not prima facie totally excluded, would be in effect to prejudge the substance of the case.

2. 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 them. It is for the party seeking suspension of operation to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences, which presupposes that it must establish that the risk of damage to which it claims to be exposed is sufficiently immediate, and prevents it from invoking damage which is only uncertain and unpredictable.

Damage of a purely pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Subject-matter

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

2. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

3. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Intervener

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

1. Under the procedure for the taxation of costs, the Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but to determine the part of that remuneration which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs.

( see para. 21 )

2. As Community law does not lay down any provisions on scales of costs, the Community judicature must freely assess the circumstances of the case, taking into account the subject-matter and nature of the dispute, its importance in terms of Community law and the difficulties of the case, the extent of the work which the proceedings before the Court could have caused to the agents or advisers acting in the case and the economic interests which the dispute represented for the parties. To this end, it does not have to take account of a national scale of costs fixing lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in this respect between the party concerned and its agents or advisers.

( see para. 22 )

3. In the context of an application for taxation of costs incurred by an intervener, account must be taken of that fact that an intervention is, by its nature, subordinate to the main action and cannot therefore present as many difficulties as that action, save in exceptional cases. The fees of an intervener's lawyer cannot therefore, as a rule, be higher than those of the main party.

However, since the main party is an institution whose defence was undertaken by members of its Legal Service assisted by a lawyer and the amount of costs claimed by it consists solely of the fees of the lawyer and does not include the working hours devoted to the case by its agents, that amount is not sufficiently representative of the workload or of the difficulties which the case presented for it. As a result, that amount cannot serve as a reference for assessing the amount of the fees of the intervener's lawyers which must be considered as essential costs.

( see paras 23, 25 )
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 1998. - LPN - Liga para Protecção da Natureza and GEOTA - Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Território e do Ambiente v Commission of the European Communities. - Inadmissibility. - Case T-155/95.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02751



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Measure not notified to the applicant - Obligation for the person concerned to request the whole text of the measure within a reasonable time of becoming aware of its existence

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para.)

Summary

For the purposes of the proceedings provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty, it is for the party who has knowledge of the existence of a measure concerning it but not notified to it and of which it seeks the annulment to request the whole text thereof within a reasonable period of time. A request made more than four months after the party concerned became aware of the existence of a measure must be regarded as not having been made within any period that could be considered reasonable and any subsequent action brought by that party will be clearly out of time.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 1996. - Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co. GmbH and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Commission of the European Communities. - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Action for annulment - Inadmissible. - Case T-18/95.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01669



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation increasing the tariff quota for imports of bananas for traders affected by a natural disaster

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulation No 2791/94)

Summary

The action brought by banana traders for the annulment of Regulation No 2791/94 on the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of tropical storm Debbie is inadmissible.

In the first place, the regulation is a legislative measure of general scope. Its purpose is to remedy the consequences of a natural disaster and it conforms with the aims of the common agricultural policy regarding stabilization of the market and the maintenance of reasonable prices for banana supplies to consumers, the operators amongst whom the additional quantity is allocated being defined in an objective way in the light of the damage caused by the tropical storm of which they were victims.

In the second place, although a regulation which is a legislative measure may still be of individual concern, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to some traders, that is not the case with regard to the regulation at issue here. The fact that the applicants belong to a closed category of traders ineligible, owing to the nature of their supply to the Community market, for the additional quota, is not sufficient to distinguish them from all other traders, of whatever category, who are likewise ineligible because they were not affected by the storm, and because in any event the regulation did not affect the quantities of bananas allocated to them, any more than it affected the specific rights vested in them.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Conditions of admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Not relevant - Limits - Main application seeking annulment of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission interpreting a provision of a regulation - Commission not having decision-making power because of the exclusive competence of the Member States to implement the provision in question - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1); Council Regulation No 2991/94)

Summary

In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures. It should be reserved for the examination of the main application, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case, unless it is apparent at first sight that the main action is manifestly inadmissible.

That is so in the case of an application for annulment of a `decision' contained in a letter from the Commission addressed to a Member State, relating to the interpretation of a provision of Regulation No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats, a provision whose implementation is within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In so far as neither the content nor the form nor the context of such a letter suggests a decision taken by the Commission in the exercise of its competence to adopt the detailed rules for the application of that regulation, the letter merely constitutes an opinion which is not binding on the national authorities, and cannot therefore be regarded as a decision capable of affecting the applicant's legal position. It is for the applicant, if the national authorities adopt the non-binding interpretation suggested by the Commission, to make use at the appropriate time of the remedies available in national law to challenge in the national courts the measures taken with respect to it, with the national court being able to refer, if appropriate, the question of the interpretation or validity of the regulation to the Court of Justice.

Since it is ancillary to a main application which is prima facie inadmissible, the application for suspension of operation of the `decision' contained in that letter must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Interim measures ° Application seeking to prevent an administrative procedure for the control of a concentration from taking place ° Application which, save in exceptional circumstances, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain in interlocutory proceedings

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Council Regulation No 4064/89)

Summary

The Community judicature has jurisdiction to review acts adopted by the Commission as administrative authority, but that jurisdiction does not extend to the review of questions on which the Commission has not yet stated its position. The result of that would be to anticipate the arguments on the substance of the case and confuse the different stages of the administrative and judicial procedures, in a manner incompatible both with the system of the allocation of powers between the Commission and the Community Courts and with the requirements of the sound administration of justice and the proper course of the administrative procedure.

A judge hearing an interim application thus cannot in principle accede to a request for interim measures seeking to prevent the Commission from exercising its powers of inquiry and penalty immediately after the opening of an administrative procedure under Regulation No 4064/89 and even before it has adopted any interlocutory or 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, an undertaking is not entitled to request under Articles 185 and 186 of the Treaty that an institution be required as an interim measure to suspend the operation of a decision opening an administrative procedure and prohibited, even provisionally, from exercising its powers in the course of such a procedure.

Such an entitlement could only be recognized 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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Proposals for a regulation - Preparatory acts

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 235)

Summary

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 for a declaration that it is void. In the particular case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, that condition is satisfied in principle only if it is a measure definitively laying down the position of the institution concerned on the conclusion of that procedure.

It follows that a preliminary or purely preparatory measure, such as a proposal for a regulation submitted by the Commission to the Council under the procedure described in Article 235 of the Treaty, may not form the subject of any action for its annulment.
Keywords

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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Action for damages and for annulment of a refusal to pay compensation - Failure by the Commission to perform its obligations towards successful tenderers for the supply of products as food aid - Contractual basis - Arbitration clause - None - No jurisdiction on the part of the Community judicature

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178, 181 and 183)

Summary

In the context of a dispute between the Commission and the successful tenderer for a supply of food aid to non-member countries, a claim for damages against the Commission, on the ground that it failed in its duty to ensure that the goods were collected by the carrier designated by it within the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation and agreed upon between the successful tenderer and the Commission, is brought on the basis of a contract. Supplies of food aid are made on the basis of contracts entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers, so that any liability which the Community could incur as a result of the organization of the supplies in question is also of a contractual nature.

Consequently, in the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance clearly lacks jurisdiction to rule on what is in fact an action for compensation arising out of a contract, when an action for damages based on Article 178 of the Treaty is brought before it. Otherwise, it would be extending 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 the national courts ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

To the extent that the application also seeks annulment of the Commission's refusal to compensate the successful tenderer for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to perform the same obligation as that on which the claim for damages is based, it is also clearly inadmissible. A party entering into a contract with the Commission cannot unilaterally circumvent the division of jurisdiction as between the Court of First Instance and the national courts by causing the Commission to reject its request for compensation and then describing that rejection as a decision within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty.