ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 1997. - Camar SRL v Commission of the European Communities. - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Application for interim measures - Request for the issue of import licences. - Case T-79/96 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00403



Summary



Keywords

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Request for the issue of import licences for bananas in derogation from the tariff quota fixed for the current marketing year - Necessary to take account of the limits imposed by Regulation No 404/93 - Rejection of the request made by an importer of bananas from Somalia considered to be in a position to resume its traditional imports

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 30)

Summary

When examining the merits of an application for interim measures, made by an undertaking which imports traditional ACP bananas from Somalia and seeking to obtain, outside the tariff quota fixed for the current marketing year, import licences for third-country or non-traditional ACP bananas in a quantity equal to the difference between the quantity of Somalian bananas which it is able to import during that marketing year and the quantity which it imported before the outbreak of civil war in Somalia, the judge hearing the application must verify not only that the requirements laid down by Article 104 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance are satisfied but also that the limits imposed on the introduction of derogations from the general system of allocating licences by Regulation No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in bananas, and in particular by Article 30 concerning the transitional measures considered necessary to assist the transition from national arrangements to the common organization of the markets are observed.

There is no need to adopt measures intended to correct the current allocation of import licences, since the forecast production of a quantity of Somalian bananas sufficient to enable the undertaking to resume its traditional imports supports the prima facie conclusion that the rules governing the common organization of the markets do not appear to restrict the opportunities for that undertaking to import bananas from Somalia within the framework of the tariff quota provided for by Regulation No 404/93 and that, for the current marketing year, there do not appear to be any difficulties, caused by the transition from the national arrangements existing before the entry into force of Regulation No 404/93 to the present arrangements under the common organization of the markets, which could threaten the undertaking's survival.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 1996. - Moccia Irme SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - ECSC - State aid - Individual decision refusing to authorize the grant of State aid to a steel-making undertaking - Suspension of operation of a measure - Necessary interim measures - Interest in obtaining the interim measures sought - Application dismissed. - Case T-164/96 R.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-02261



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Interest of applicant in obtaining the measure sought - Measures which do not prejudge the decision on the merits - Application for suspension of a decision refusing authorization for the grant of aid to a steel undertaking and for the reopening of the procedure for examining that aid - Dismissed - Application for an order requiring the Commission to call upon a Member State to suspend the payment of aid under an authorized scheme - Dismissed

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c), 34 and 39; Commission Decision No 3855/91)

Summary

A decision of the Commission refusing authorization for the grant of State aid to a steel undertaking is negative in character. Such an undertaking cannot establish an interest in obtaining the suspension of such a decision by way of interim relief since, in the absence of a positive decision of the Commission authorizing the aid in question, the prohibition on subsidies and aid laid down by Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty must apply.

Nor can such an undertaking establish an interest in obtaining, by way of interim relief, the reopening of the procedure for examining the aid in question, inasmuch as to reopen the procedure would not necessarily lead the Commission to adopt a positive decision which alone could permit the State in question to grant the aid to that undertaking. Moreover, a measure of that kind would not be an interim measure since it would produce the same results as those sought in the main proceedings and prejudge the decision on the merits.

Finally, where the aid in question is related to a system of aid, already approved by the Commission, for the permanent closure of steelworks, to uphold an application for interim relief seeking that the Commission be required to call upon the Member State concerned to suspend payment of aid for closure to the other undertakings which have applied for it is of only apparent usefulness, inasmuch as it does not prevent the expiry of the time-limit, laid down in Decision No 3855/91, beyond which no more aid can be paid. Moreover, such a measure - amounting to ordering a Member State to suspend an aid scheme already found to be compatible with the Treaty - would manifestly be beyond the powers conferred on the Commission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - No such damage in the case of an association of sugar manufacturers seeking suspension of the fixing of a disadvantageous intervention price

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; the 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 them. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

An application for interim measures, submitted by an association of sugar manufacturers and requesting the suspension of a legislative provision fixing for the following marketing year the derived intervention price for white sugar, must be dismissed where the alleged damage consists of, first, a continuing reduction in the guaranteed sugar production quotas for Community manufacturers, although there can be no real danger of a reduction in those quotas until a time by which it is probable that judgment will already have been given in the main proceedings and, second, loss of a considerable share of the European sugar market to the advantage of importers of non-Community sugar, damage which has not been demonstrated to be serious and irreparable and, in any event, does not appear to be irreversible having regard to the effects of possible annulment of the contested provision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action contesting a decision which has already been implemented

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

The legal interest of a consumers' association in maintaining an action for annulment of a Commission decision refusing to recognise it as an interested party for the purposes of an anti-dumping proceeding can continue to exist even when that decision has already been implemented. The annulment of such a decision is capable, of itself, of having legal consequences and particularly that of preventing a repetition of the Commission's practice.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 1997. - Comité européen des fabricants de sucre v Council of the European Union. - Sugar - Common organization of the markets - Fixing of intervention prices - Interim measures procedure - Suspension of operation. - Case T-229/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01649



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - No such damage in the case of an association of sugar manufacturers seeking suspension of the fixing of a disadvantageous intervention price

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; the 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 them. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

An application for interim measures, submitted by an association of sugar manufacturers and requesting the suspension of a legislative provision fixing for the following marketing year the derived intervention price for white sugar, must be dismissed where the alleged damage consists of, first, a continuing reduction in the guaranteed sugar production quotas for Community manufacturers, although there can be no real danger of a reduction in those quotas until a time by which it is probable that judgment will already have been given in the main proceedings and, second, loss of a considerable share of the European sugar market to the advantage of importers of non-Community sugar, damage which has not been demonstrated to be serious and irreparable and, in any event, does not appear to be irreversible having regard to the effects of possible annulment of the contested provision.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

11 December 2001

Case T-99/97

Willem Stols

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Request for regrading — Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-1061

Application for:

annulment of the Council's decision of 13 August 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for a review of his grading.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Time-barred — Reopening of the prescribed period — Condition — New fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Although Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations provides that any official may request the appointing authority to take a decision relating to him, that right does not allow an official to set aside the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for the lodging of a complaint and an appeal by indirectly calling in question by means of a request a previous decision which has not been challenged within the period prescribed. Only the existence of material new facts may justify the submission of a request for a review of such a decision.

In that regard, the judgment in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-227 and II-683 does not constitute a new fact which would justify the lodging of a request for a review of a grading decision.

(see paras 40-41)

See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 10; 127/84 Esly v Commission [1985] ECR 1437, para. 10; 161/87 Muysers and Tülp v Court of Auditors [1988] ECR 3037, para. 11; T-16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-237and II-681, paras 33, 37 and 39 to 45
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 March 1998. - Georges Berthu v Council of the European Union. - Economic and monetary policy - Council Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Replacement of the name "ECU" provided for by Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the name "euro" - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-207/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00509



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Action brought by the holder of a transferable security drawn in ecus - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 1103/97)

Summary

An action brought by an individual for annulment of Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, which requires, in particular, that every reference to the ecu, as mentioned in Article 109g of the Treaty, is to be replaced by a reference to the euro, is inadmissible.

In this respect, the fact that the applicant holds a French fungible Treasury bond drawn in ecus is not enough to give him locus standi under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. While the change in the name of the single currency does affect the applicant, it is only in his capacity as a citizen of a Member State and user of the single currency, and in the same way as any other citizen or undertaking in a Member State, so that the disputed act is not of individual concern to him.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 1997. - T. Port GmbH & Co. v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Request for the issue of additional import licences - Action for declaration of failure to act - Procedure by default - No need to adjudicate. - Case T-39/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02125



Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure remedied after the action was brought - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Arts 175 and 176)

Summary

The remedy provided for in Article 175 of the Treaty is founded on the premiss that the failure to act on the part of a Community institution enables an action to be brought before the Court of First Instance in order to obtain a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the Treaty, in so far as it has not been remedied by the institution concerned. The effect of that declaration under Article 176 of the Treaty is that the defendant institution is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. Where the act whose absence constitutes the subject-matter of the proceedings was adopted after the action was brought but before judgment, a declaration by the Court to the effect that the initial failure to act is unlawful can no longer lead to the result envisaged by Article 176 of the Treaty. It follows that in such a case the subject-matter of the action has ceased to exist with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 November 1998. - Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the European Union. - Stay of proceedings. - Case T-310/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-04131



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by a natural or legal person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty, concerning the implementation of the association of the overseas countries and territories - Request pending before the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the same measure - Proceedings before the Court of First Instance stayed in the interests of the proper administration of justice

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, third para.)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation abolishing adjustment aid for sugar beet producers - Action brought by producers and a producers' association - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2613/97, Art. 2)

Summary

The action brought by certain sugar beet producers for the annulment of Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97 - which abolishes all adjustment aid for such producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year - is inadmissible.

That provision introduces a measure of general application which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, namely the Member States and the sugar beet producers. Moreover, even though that measure is susceptible of affecting the applicants' situation, it would do so only by reason of their objective attribute as economic operators active in the sugar beet sector, in the same way as any economic operator engaged in the same business in the European Community.

In that connection, the fact that the measure's effects are likely to be felt more severely in the region where the applicants are active is irrelevant, since the possibility that such a measure may have different specific effects on the various persons to whom it applies is not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation and, in any event, the applicants are in the same situation as any other sugar producer operating in the same region.

The action brought by a national association defending beetgrowers' interests for annulment of the same provision is also inadmissible since that association is not distinguished by any of the criteria which are relevant in this regard. In the first place, the regulations on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector do not recognise that associations have any right of a procedural nature. Secondly, the growers whose interests are represented by the association in question are in a situation comparable to that of any other operator who may enter the same market. Thirdly, Regulation No 2613/97 neither concerns the members of the association individually nor affects the association's own interests; and the association did not play a role as negotiator in the procedure leading to the adoption of the regulation in question.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons concerned - Dispute concerning the annulment of a regulation laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources - Traders - Local or regional bodies - Whether admissible - Conditions

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 37, second para., and 46, first para.)

Summary

$$The concept of an interest in the result of the dispute, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, must be understood as a direct and actual interest in the manner in which applications for forms of order are dealt with. The Community judicature ascertains, in particular, that the intervener is directly affected by the contested act and that it has an established interest in the result of the dispute.

Where an action is brought for annulment of a regulation imposing a ban on the use by vessels flying the flag of a Member State of drift nets for catching certain species, an interest in the result of the dispute is possessed by traders established in a Member State who use that method of fishing, in so far as the regulation could prevent them from carrying on part of their fishing activities and affect their income.

Such an interest is also possessed by a local or regional body if it is able definitely to establish that its economic and social structure is essentially dependent on the sector affected by the contested regulation and that the maintenance in force of that measure could require a reconversion plan for the whole of the area concerned.

However, an application for leave to intervene is inadmissible in the case of a local or regional body whose interest is based on the risk of a reduction in the level of employment and in the activities of traders established in a particular area of its territory - represented by another intervener - where it has not been shown that the economic and social structure of the territory as a whole is essentially dependent on that sector of activity. The general interest which such a body may evince in obtaining a favourable result as far as the prosperity of such undertakings is concerned - and, consequently, as regards the level of employment in the geographical area where those undertakings operate - cannot itself justify an intervention in the dispute, since such an interest is indirect and remote. Moreover, the presumed interest of another intervening party does not constitute a direct interest in the resolution of the dispute.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 August 1998. - Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Council of the European Union. - Association arrangements for overseas countries and territories - Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Urgency - None. - Case T-43/98 R.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-03055



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Appraisal allowing for the Community institution's discretion - Financial damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; 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 a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

As regards the introduction, within the framework of the association arrangements for overseas countries and territories, of tariff quotas for the importation of certain agricultural products free of customs duties, the judge hearing an application for interim measures may not, save in a situation of manifest urgency, override the Council's assessment as to the choice of the most appropriate measure to prevent disruption of the Community market for the products concerned, without running the risk of encroaching upon the Council's discretion. It follows that the request cannot be granted unless the urgency of the measures sought appears undeniable.

Purely financial damage cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable since it can be made good by pecuniary compensation. The existence of exceptional circumstances may be found where it appears that, without the interim measure sought, the party concerned could be placed in a situation liable to endanger its very existence or to alter its market share irreversibly.