ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - None save where the clear sense has been distorted

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

Under Article 168a of the EC Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

Therefore, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. Moreover, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That assessment does not, therefore, constitute (save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted) a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 1997. - Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of an act - Interest in bringing proceedings - State aid. - Case C-89/97 P(R).



European Court reports 1997 Page I-02327



Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Dismissal - Legal characterization of the facts - Legal assessment of the applicant's interest in obtaining suspension of operation of a decision - Admissibility

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(1))

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of an act - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable harm - Applicant's interest in obtaining the suspension sought - Negative administrative decision

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 39, second para.)

Summary

3 Although, by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 51 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, the grounds of an appeal must be confined to points of law, to the exclusion of any findings on the facts of the case, this does not, however, prevent pleas being raised in support of an appeal which relate to the legal assessment of such facts and seek to establish that the Court of First Instance committed an error in law.

In that regard, an appeal against an order on an application for interim relief, in which it is claimed that the applicant's interest in obtaining suspension of operation of the decision at issue was inadequately examined, is not confined to contesting the findings of fact made by the judge hearing the application for interim relief but must be understood as seeking to establish that the contested order contains an error in law as regards the legal assessment of the facts in point.

4 The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of operation of an act, or order other interim measures, only if it is established, inter alia, that such an order is urgent inasmuch as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Interim measures which would not serve to prevent the serious and irreparable harm feared by the applicant cannot a fortiori be necessary for that purpose. If the applicant does not have any interest in obtaining the interim measures sought, those measures cannot, therefore, satisfy the criterion of urgency.

An application for suspension of operation cannot, in principle, be envisaged against a negative administrative decision, since the grant of suspension could not have the effect of changing the applicant's position.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Actions brought by a natural or legal person against other natural or legal persons or for annulment of a purely national decision - Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 3b and 4)

Summary

Under Articles 3b and 4 of the Treaty, the Court, like the other institutions of the Community, has jurisdiction to act only within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty. Neither the jurisdiction to take cognisance of actions brought by natural or legal persons against other natural or legal persons, nor the jurisdiction to take cognisance of actions for annulment of purely national decisions falls within those powers. Accordingly, such actions are manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2000. - Administración General del Estado v Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa et Diputación Foral de Giupúzcoa. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco - Spain. - Removal from the register. - Joined cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97.



European Court reports 2000 Page I-01073



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97,

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco for preliminary rulings in the proceedings pending before that court between

Administración del Estado

and

Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa,

Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa,

Intervener: Gobierno Vasco (C-400/97)

Juntas Generales de Álava,

Diputación Foral de Álava,

Intervener: Gobierno Vasco (C-401/97)

Juntas Generales de Vizcaya,

Interveners: Gobierno Vasco,

Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, (C-402/97)

on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC),

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,

after hearing the views of Advocate General Saggio,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

By orders of 30 July 1997, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 1997, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (High Court of Justice of the Basque Country) referred three questions to the Court for preliminary rulings on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC).

By letters of 8 February 2000, received at the Court Registry on 14 February 2000, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco informed the Court that, as a result of the discontinuance of the applicant in the cases in the main proceedings, it was withdrawing its requests of 30 July 1997 for preliminary rulings.

In those circumstances, it must be ordered that the present cases be removed from the Register of the Court.

The costs incurred by the Spanish Government and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the actions pending before the national court, the decisions on costs are a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97 are removed from the Register of the Court.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 May 1998. - Ireland v Commission of the European Communities. - Admissibility - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Unforeseeable circumstances - Force majeure. - Case C-239/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-02655



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action out of time - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 42, second para.)

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 42 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.

An exceptional malfunctioning of the postal services resulting in an application for annulment being out of time does not constitute such circumstances when the applicant only sent the application, albeit by express mail, the day before the expiry of the time-limit laid down, when it had a period of 10 days on account of distance calculated on the basis of the normal period for postal delivery taking into account any problems in the postal service.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of reference - Questions put without sufficient information on the factual and legislative context - Questions put in a context which excludes a useful reply

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the assumptions of fact on which those questions are based. The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.

Consequently, a request from a national court which does not describe the factual context of the dispute or the assumptions of fact on which it is based, or explain the national legislative context, or the precise reasons which have prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling, is manifestly inadmissible, in that it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Grounds - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

Summary

Under Article 168a of the Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
Order of the President of the Court of 28 September 1998. - Pharos SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention. - Case C-151/98 P-I.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-05441



Summary



Keywords

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

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

Summary

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

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

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Community courts - Commission decision rejecting a complaint alleging infringement of the competition rules - Unlimited jurisdiction - None - Appeal based on the argument that annulment of the decision by the Court of First Instance is equivalent to a finding that the competition rules were infringed - Appeal clearly unfounded

(EC Treaty, Arts 86 and 172 (now Arts 82 EC and 229 EC) and Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

Summary

$$Annulment by the Court of First Instance of a Commission decision rejecting a complaint alleging infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty (now Article 82 EC) on the basis that the grounds of justification put forward by the Commission in the contested decision were not such as to render that provision inapplicable is not equivalent to a finding by the Court of First Instance that there has been abuse of a dominant position. Since the review of legality provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) does not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the Court of First Instance, unlike that exercised by the Community Courts pursuant to Article 172 of the EC Treaty (now Article 229 EC), the Court of First Instance is not entitled to substitute another decision for the contested decision or to amend that decision.

Since the Court of First Instance confined itself, as it is required to do in an action for annulment based on Article 173 of the Treaty, to determining whether the Commission's reasoning was valid, any appeal based on the argument that, in annulling the contested decision, it ruled that there was abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty must be dismissed as being clearly unfounded.

( see paras 24 to 31 )
Order of the Court of 4 October 1999. - Commission of the European Communities v ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH. - Appeal manifestly inadmissible - Measures of inquiry - Production of documents. - Case C-349/99 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-06467



Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Decisions against which an appeal may be brought - Order of the Court of First Instance requiring production of documents - Not covered - Appeal must be dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 119)

Summary

$$Pursuant to Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of the Justice, an appeal seeking to have an order made by the Court of First Instance set aside must be dismissed as clearly inadmissible where the order under appeal instructs the Commission to produce documents so that they can be placed in the case-file and made available to the other party. Such an order does not fall within one of the categories of measure against which an appeal may be brought pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance - Error of law relied on not identified - Inadmissiblity

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Provision fixing the amount of compensation for sugar storage costs in respect of a particular marketing year - Action brought by Italian sugar manufacturers - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 1534/95, Art. 4)

Summary

1. It follows from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and from Article 112(1)(c) of its Rules of Procedure that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment or order and also the legal arguments specifically supporting the claim for it to be set aside. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that court. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

( see paras 35-36 )

2. The fact that it is possible to define more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies does not imply that the latter must be regarded as being individually concerned by that measure as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective situation of fact or of law defined by the measure in question.

Thus Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95, which fixes the amount of the reimbursement to compensate for storage costs for the 1995/96 marketing year, is not of individual concern to Italian sugar manufacturers holding production quotas. First, that provision fixes the amount of reimbursement for all sugar manufacturers in the same way and, in particular, regardless of the classification of the area in which they are established. Second, the amount of reimbursement is not fixed on the basis of the quotas allocated only to Italian sugar producer undertakings or of the figures from the appellants, but is established on the basis of financing costs, insurance costs and specific storage costs, in accordance with the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1534/95.

( see paras 46, 49-51 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures Suspension of operation of a measure Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine Conditions for granting Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures Interim measures Jurisdiction of the judge hearing the application for interim relief Limits Jurisdiction of the judge of the Court of First Instance hearing the application for interim relief to order measures designed to produce their effects until the date of delivery of a judgment of the Court of Justice None

(Art. 242 EC and Art. 243 EC)

Summary

1. A request for dispensation from the obligation to set up a bank guarantee, where that guarantee is the condition imposed in return for staying enforcement of a fine imposed by the Commission for infringement of the competition rules, cannot be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances. In the context of applications for interim relief, express provision is made in the Rules of Procedure of both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for requiring security to be lodged, which reflects a general and reasonable policy pursued by the Commission.

( see para. 88 )

2. The judge of the Court of First Instance hearing the application for interim relief has no jurisdiction to order interim measures designed to produce their effects up to such time as the Court of Justice decides any appeal that might be brought against the final judgment of the Court of First Instance.

It follows from the wording of Articles 242 EC and 243 EC that suspension of operation of an act like other interim measures may be ordered by the Court of Justice or by the Court of First Instance only in the context of a case pending before it. Moreover, it is clear from the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that, where an appeal is brought, it is for the Court of Justice to rule on any application by a party for suspension of operation of a measure or for the grant of other interim measures.

( see paras 96-100 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt - Questions to which the answer may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

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

2. Own resources of the European Communities - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Time-limit for recovery - Entry in the accounts of the amount originally required of the person liable for payment - Definition - Official act which precedes notification regarding recovery and actual recovery - Entry by the customs authority in the accounts books, or any other medium used in their stead, of the amount in question - Not relevant

(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Arts 1(2)(c) and 2(1), second para.)

3. Own resources of the European Communities - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Time-limit for recovery - Setting in motion of action for recovery - Initial act of the administration determining the amount of levies payable annulled and replaced by a second act confined to correcting the former by fixing the levies payable in an amount lower than the former - Action set in motion by the initial act

(Council Regulation No 1697/79, Art. 2(2))

4. Accession of new Member States to the Communities - Portugal - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Obligation incumbent on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to the elimination of surplus stocks - Payment of a levy imposed by that State on traders holding a surplus which fail to export stocks within a certain period - Whether permissible

(1985 Act of Accession, Art. 254; Council Regulation No 3771/85; Commission Regulation No 579/86, Art. 7(1))

5. Own resources of the European Communities - Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties - Criteria for waiver of recovery laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79

(Council Regulation No 1679/79, Art. 5(2))
Case C-321/01 P

Aerana Zucker und Stärke AG

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on the Accession of the Republic of Austria’

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 5 November 2002 I-10029

Summary of the Order

State aid — Investigation by the Commission — Aid granted to Austrian or Finnish undertakings — Joint Declaration No 31 on the processing industry in Austria and Finland, annexed to the Final Act of the Accession Treaty — Scope

(Joint Declaration No 31, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden)

Joint Declaration No 31 on the processing industry in Austria and Finland, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union, which requires the Commission to make a flexible assessment of the transitional national aid schemes designed to facilitate restructuring of the processing industry in those countries made necessary by their accession, should be interpreted as meaning that it precludes application of the Community rules on State aid in a manner which fails to take into account the particular aspects of the case in question.

In order to comply with such an obligation the Commission is required to assess whether the aid is likely to promote the development of an economic sector or area without affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. It is not, however, required to weigh the advantages which the Community would gain from the accession of one of those Member States to the European Union without a transitional period against the disadvantages involved in the aid in question being paid.

(see paras 28-32)