ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Allocation of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance ° Proceedings instituted by a natural or legal person on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings and pending before the Court of First Instance ° Proceedings for the annulment of the same act, but instituted by a Member State, pending before the Court of Justice ° In the interest of the proper administration of justice for the Court of Justice to consider the arguments of the natural or legal person ° Disclaimer of jurisdiction by the Court of First Instance

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



Keywords

Common commercial policy - Common rules for imports - Quotas for certain categories of toys coming from the People's Republic of China - Plea of illegality raised against Articles 1(2) of Regulation No 519/94 and 3(2) of Regulation No 747/94 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Council Regulation No 519/94, Art. 1(2); Commission Regulation No 747/94, Art. 3(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties - Travel and subsistence expenses and remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers of the Community institutions - Conditions of recovery

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Factors to be taken into consideration

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

Summary

3 Where, in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, an institution exercises the option, which it is recognized as having under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 thereof, to seek the assistance of a lawyer, the remuneration of the latter falls within the ambit of `expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings' within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

It follows, with regard to the reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by the institution's agent for the purpose of the oral procedure, that the fact that the lawyer of the institution was present during the hearing in no way precluded its agent from also being present, given that the latter's presence also met the need for the institution concerned to be appropriately represented. It follows that such travel expenses fall within the ambit of `expenses necessarily incurred ... for the purpose of the proceedings'.

4 In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature must, when taxing costs pursuant to Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, freely assess the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. In so doing, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 29 April 1998. - British Coal Corporation v Commission of the European Communities. - ECSC Treaty - Action for annulment of an implied decision of refusal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law. - Case T-367/94.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00705



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission after it had been put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty - Decision alleged to result from the Commission's failure to reject outright a complaint alleging breaches by that producer of the competition rules in the ECSC Treaty - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(d), 35, 65 and 66(7))

Summary

An action brought by a coal producer against an implied decision of refusal by the Commission allegedly resulting from the latter's failure, after being put on formal notice under Article 35 of the ECSC Treaty, to reject outright a complaint alleging that that producer breached Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

When such a complaint is brought before it, the Commission is not only not under an obligation to dismiss it without prior examination but is in fact required to carry out such an examination. The obligation on the Commission to examine carefully the issues of fact and law which a complainant has brought to its attention in order to decide whether those elements point to conduct likely to distort competition within the common market must in particular be complied with where the Commission is acting within the context of the ECSC Treaty, in which it has exclusive jurisdiction.

Furthermore, if the Commission were, following that examination, to adopt a decision rejecting the complaint, it would, in any event, be required to set out the facts and considerations underlying its conclusions, and any review as to legality would then have to consist of verifying that the decision was not based on substantively inaccurate facts or vitiated by an error of law, manifest error of assessment, misuse of powers or abuse of process.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a competition decision ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Concept ° Uncertain and speculative risk ° Exclusion ° Balance of convenience

(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 decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

Only the existence, at least foreseeable or probable, of third-party undertakings interested in using the Channel Tunnel' s capacity would be capable of substantiating the risk of serious and irreparable damage alleged by railway undertakings seeking the suspension of operation of the conditions attached to the Commission' s decision granting exemption under Article 85(3) of the Treaty in so far as those conditions require the applicants to surrender to third parties up to one-quarter of their rights under the usage contract exempted by the Commission. In those circumstances, suspension could be ordered only if the applicants could demonstrate before the judge hearing the application that the surrenders of capacity at issue would immediately make it impossible for them to fulfil their obligations relating to the operation of the tunnel or that they could no longer, if their applications in the main proceedings were to succeed, recover from the third parties the capacity surrendered to them in the meantime. Since they have not adduced evidence of those conditions, the damage to them is too uncertain and speculative to be able to prevail in the assessment of the balance of convenience over the preservation of effective competition and the principle of the freedom to provide services in the rail transport sector which the Commission sought to protect by attaching the abovementioned condition to the exemption.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure to act remedied prior to the initiation of proceedings - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

Where a defendant institution which has been requested to act defines its position in response to that request after the period of two months laid down by the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty has expired but prior to the initiation of proceedings, the conditions prescribed by that article for the admissibility of an action for failure to act are not fulfilled.

The fact that the position taken by the institution does not satisfy the applicant is immaterial in that regard, since Article 175 refers to failure to act in the sense of failure to take a decision or to define a position, not the adoption of a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the persons concerned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

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

(EAEC Treaty, Arts 157 and 158; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

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, so as not to prejudge the Court' s decision on the substance of the case. It should be reserved for the examination of the main action, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. When that is the case, for example because the applicant is seeking the annulment of a decision addressed to a Member State and cannot be regarded as being prima facie individually concerned by that decision, the interim application must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Commission letter rejecting a request for reduction of the amount of a fine imposed in a decision applying the competition rules and stating the reasons for that amount - Confirmatory decision - Exclusion

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

An undertaking which has brought an action against a decision imposing on it a fine for infringement of the Community competition rules has no standing to contest a letter in which the Commission rejects its request to have the amount of that fine reduced and states the reasons for that amount. Such a letter merely confirms the decision imposing the fine and does not affect the undertaking's legal position resulting from the adoption of the decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application originating proceedings - Formal requirements - Summary of the pleas relied on - Application for reparation of damage caused by a Community institution - No evidence of the damage suffered or of a causal link - Inadmissible - Not possible to make good lack of evidence by requesting appointment of an expert for determining the material damage allegedly suffered

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c), 64(2)(b) and (c), and 65(d))

Summary

Under Article 19 of the EC 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 the application is based. An application for reparation of damage alleged to have been caused by a Community institution which does not provide the slightest evidence of either the nature of the alleged damage or of the way in which it was caused by the conduct of the defendant institution does not satisfy those requirements.

Such a total lack of particulars cannot be regarded as being made good by a request, made in the application, for appointment of an expert for determining the material damage to be made good. Such a request cannot be granted in so far as it seeks measures of inquiry under Article 65(d) of the Rules of Procedure since such a measure presupposes that the facts to be proved are identified, which the application fails to do. Nor can it be granted in so far as it seeks a measure of organization of procedure under Article 64(2)(b) and (c) of those Rules because its purpose is neither to determine the points requiring further inquiry nor to clarify the forms of order sought or the points at issue between the parties.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Admissibility of the main action ° Not relevant ° Limits ° Main application seeking annulment of a Commission decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings ° Inadmissible

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

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, so as not to prejudge the Court' s decision on the substance of the case. It should be reserved for the examination of the main action, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible.

That is so in the case of an application for annulment of a decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings. Such a decision constitutes, at first sight, a preliminary measure with no legal effect, in that it is not capable of immediately and irreversibly affecting the legal position of the undertakings concerned and does not oblige them to alter their commercial policy or cooperate in the investigation, which may moreover be terminated without trade defence measures being imposed. With respect to such a decision, the rights of the defence are sufficiently safeguarded by the possibility of contesting its lawfulness in an action brought against the final decision. Where it is ancillary to a main application which is prima facie inadmissible, an application for suspension of operation of a decision by the Commission to initiate anti-dumping proceedings must be dismissed.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Service of copies of the pleadings on the interveners - Derogation - Confidential treatment - Conditions - Examination of information covered by a confidentiality agreement between the applicant and a person not party to the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))

Summary

Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance lays down the principle that a copy of every document served on the parties must be served on the interveners. It is only by way of derogation from that principle that the second sentence of that provision permits certain documents to be treated as confidential, thereby exempting them from the said requirement that copies must be served.

For the purpose of determining the conditions under which confidential treatment may be given to certain documents in the file, it is necessary, in respect of each document, to balance the legitimate concern of the party concerned to prevent substantial damage to its business interests and the intervener's equally legitimate concern to have the necessary information for the purpose of being fully in a position to assert its rights and to state its case before the Court.

Although natural or legal persons other than the parties to the dispute are entitled to protection in respect of confidential information concerning them, the fact that a confidentiality agreement has been concluded between the party concerned and a third party cannot mean that confidential treatment is automatically to be accorded to the information covered by that agreement. The existence of such an agreement cannot justify derogation from the rule laid down by Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

It is only once an examination has been carried out to determine the confidentiality or otherwise of each document in respect of which an application for confidential treatment, duly supported by reasons, has been submitted and, as the case may be, once the interests of the third party and of the interveners have been weighed in the balance, that the Community judicature can rule on the merits of the application, since the existence of a confidentiality agreement between the party concerned and the third party in question cannot preclude such an examination.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Concept of complaint within the meaning of Regulation No 17 - Assessment with reference to the purpose of the complaint - Complaint seeking a finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169; Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

2 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to open a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175, para. 3)

Summary

3 The nature of a complaint to the Commission must be determined with reference to its purpose and not only with regard to its form. Mere reference to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, without further observation, in a letter to the Commission cannot serve to give that letter the character of a complaint under that article when it is apparent that its purpose is to obtain a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

It should not be possible for a plaintiff to circumvent the applicable rules by seeking to remove a procedure from the ambit of Article 169 of the Treaty by artificially subjecting it to the principles set out in Regulation No 17, which put the plaintiff in a better procedural position than under Article 169 of the Treaty.

4 An action brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, in infringement of the Treaty, the Commission failed to act by not initiating proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations with regard to a Member State is inadmissible.

In fact, natural and legal persons may only rely on the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty in order to challenge the Commission's failure to adopt measures of which they are potential addressees. In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 169 of the Treaty, the only measures which the Commission may adopt are measures addressed to Member States.

Moreover, it is apparent from the scheme of Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not bound to initiate the procedure provided for therein but has a discretion in this regard which excludes the right for individuals to require that institution to adopt a specific position.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 1996. - John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd v Council of the European Union. - Removal from the register. - Case T-19/96.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01519



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Action for annulment - Applicants' withdrawal - Conditions for the award of costs against the other party not satisfied

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 1997. - TEAM Srl and Centralne Biuro Projektowo-Badawcze Budownictwa Kolejowego (Kolprojekt) v Commission of the European Communities. - PHARE Programme - Decision to annul an invitation to tender and issue a new invitation to tender - Action for annulment and claim for compensation - Application for a decision not to proceed to judgment - Plea of inadmissibility. - Case T-13/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00983



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action challenging the decision to annul an invitation to tender issued under the PHARE Programme and the issuing of a new invitation to tender - Withdrawal of the project to which the two invitations to tender related - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 176)

Summary

An action challenging the decision of the Commission to annul an invitation to tender issued under the PHARE Programme, extending economic aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, and the issuing of a new invitation to tender is rendered devoid of purpose, so that there is no longer any need for the Court to give a decision, when, during the course of the proceedings, the recipient country requests the withdrawal from the PHARE Programme of the project to which the two invitations to tender related and the Commission accedes to that request. In such a situation, in which there is no longer a contract to be awarded and any judgment of the Court annulling the contested decision and the contested new invitation to tender could not give rise to the requirement to comply referred to in Article 176 of the Treaty, the applicant no longer has any interest in obtaining their annulment.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 1997. - C.A.S. Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Procedure for interim relief - Application for suspension of the operation of a measure. - Case T-191/96 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00211



Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Irrelevant - 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 a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Meaning - Onus of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Commission Regulation No 228/96)

Summary

3 The admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in a procedure for interim measures. It must be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible, so as not to prejudge the Court's decision on the substance of the case.

4 The urgency of the adoption of interim measures must be considered by examining whether the implementation of the contested measures, prior to the adoption of the decision of the Community judicature on the main issue, is such as to give rise, for the party requesting the measures, to serious and irreparable damage which could not be made good if the contested decision were annulled or which, despite its interim nature, would be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in having the measures implemented, even when they are the subject of legal proceedings. It is for the applicant to prove that those conditions are satisfied.

An application for interim measures seeking the suspension of the operation of a decision adopted in connection with the implementation of Regulation No 228/96, whereby the Commission determined the criteria for substituting peaches and apricots for the apples and oranges initially envisaged as payment for the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan, must be rejected where the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence to support its claims to the effect that the adoption of the contested decision would result in serious distortion of competition in the market in the industrial processing of peaches, causing serious and irreparable damage.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action seeking annulment of a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty - Action brought by the chairman of a trade union committee of an undertaking - Inadmissible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33; EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

The chairman of a trade union committee of an undertaking concerned by a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty is not entitled to bring an action seeking annulment of that decision, since such persons are not referred to by Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty, which provides an exhaustive list of the persons entitled to bring an action for annulment, and Article 173 of the EC Treaty cannot apply to such an action.