ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision that a national measure did not constitute State aid – Right of a competitor undertaking to bring an action – Condition – Market position significantly affected – Not essential to participate as complainant in the procedure before the Commission

(Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

A Commission decision holding a national measure not to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, adopted at the end of the formal investigation procedure laid down by Article 88(2) EC, is of individual concern to undertakings if they are at the origin of the complaint which leads to the opening of the investigation procedure, if their views are heard during that procedure and if the conduct of the procedure is determined by their observations, provided, however, that their position on the market is significantly affected by the measure which is the subject of the contested decision.

If an undertaking has not played an active role in the administrative procedure before the Commission, it may demonstrate by other means that it is also individually concerned, but it must in any case show that the measure approved by the decision is capable of significantly affecting its position on the market in question. The mere fact that the decision in question may exercise an influence on the competitive relationships existing on the relevant market and that the undertaking concerned was in a competitive relationship with the addressee of that decision does not constitute that significant effect. An undertaking cannot therefore rely solely on its status as a competitor of the undertaking to which the measure in question applies but must additionally show the magnitude of the prejudice to its position on the market.

(see paras 34, 36-37)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Opposition — Failure to produce, within the prescribed time-limit, a translation of evidence and documents in support of the opposition — Discretion of the office to reject the opposition — (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 16 and 17(2))

Summary

If, in opposition proceedings against the registration of a Community trade mark under Article 42 et seq. of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the opponent does not produce, as required by Rule 17(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94, a translation of the evidence and documents in support of the opposition into the language of the opposition proceedings before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), the Office may lawfully reject the opposition as unfounded unless, in accordance with Rule 20(3) of Regulation No 2865/95, it can give a ruling on it by other means on the basis of the evidence which it may already have before it.

Rejection of the opposition is justified even where the opponent fulfils the requirements of Rule 16 of the implementing regulation, concerning the production of such evidence and documents, since the failure to comply with Rule 17(2) does not permit the applicant for a trade mark to exercise its rights of defence in the inter partes proceedings, or the Board of Appeal to satisfy itself with sufficient certainty that the rights relied on by the opponent were real.

see paras 39, 43, 45
Case T-392/02 R





Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV

v

Council of the European Union





«(Proceedings for interim relief – Directive 70/524/EEC – Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for an additive in feedingstuffs – Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 – Application for suspension of operation – Admissibility – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 11 April 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation providing for withdrawal of marketing authorisation for the additive Nifursol in animal feedingstuffs – Admissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1756/2002)

2.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Implementation – Taking account of the precautionary principle – No express reference – Not relevant – Application of the principle – Scope – Limits

(Arts 152 EC and 174 EC; Council Regulation No 1756/2002; Commission Regulation No 2430/1999; Council Directive 70/524, Art. 3a(b))

3.. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Re-evaluation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs expressly not subject to re-evaluation – Renewal of marketing authorisation – Withdrawal of authorisation – Obligation of the Commission to serve formal notice on the person responsible for bringing the additive into circulation – Limits

(Council Directives 70/524, Art. 9m, second and fifth indents, 3a(b) and 9h and 96/51)

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Assessment criteria – Decision to adjudicate on the substance of the action under an expedited procedure within the meaning of Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance – Not relevant

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 76a(1))

5.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of a regulation providing for withdrawal of marketing authorisation for an additive in animal feedingstuffs – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage of a financial nature – Scope – Limits



6.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests at stake – Priority to be given to protection of public health over economic considerations – Priority to be given to the protection of human health over that of animal health

(Art. 30 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
In principle the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings for interim relief so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim relief relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding that the main action is prima facie admissible.

In the context of that overall examination, the judge hearing the application has a wide discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be analysed and assessed.

An application for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of the operation of a measure must be dismissed if any one of them is absent.

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party who requests the interim measure. It is for that party to adduce proof that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage.

Purely financial harm cannot as a matter of principle be regarded as irreparable, or even difficult to repair, because financial compensation can be made for it subsequently. However, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim relief to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether the immediate execution of the contested decision may cause the applicant serious and imminent harm that even the annulment of the decision at the close of the main proceedings would be unable to repair.

The fact that a member of the temporary staff whose contract is expiring is forced, by reason of his family circumstances, to find new employment at the place where he was formerly employed does not as such constitute serious and irreparable harm. It is merely a consequence of the fact that his contract is coming to an end.

(see paras 29-33)

See: C-213/91 R Abertal and Others v Commission [1991] ECR I-5109, para. 24; T-203/98 R Tzikis v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-37 and II-167, para. 49; T-70/99 R Alpharma v Council [1999] ECR II-2027, para. 128; T-373/00 R Tralli v ECB [2001] ECRSC I-A-19 and II-83, paras 26 and 27; T-300/01 R De Nicola v EIB, not published in the ECR, paras 52 and 60, confirmed on appeal in C-198/02 P(R), not published in the ECR, paras 46 and 49
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions governing admissibility — Application — Procedural requirements — Failure to produce documents — Regularisation — (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(3) to (6) and 104(3))

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Priority to be given to protection of public health over economic considerations — Account taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant — (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. Failure to attach the documents referred to in Article 44(3) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to an application for interim relief, as required by Article 104(3) of those rules, does not automatically make the application inadmissible. Given the express reference in Article 104(3) to Article 44, the principles set out in that latter provision should also apply in the context of an application for interim relief, particularly those set out in Article 44(6), whereby if the application does not comply with the obligations laid down in Article 44 (3) to (5), the Registrar must set the applicant a reasonable time-limit within which to put its application in order.

see paras 43-45

2. Where, in the context of an application for suspension, the judge hearing the application, being informed that there is a risk that the applicant may suffer serious and irreparable damage, weighs up the various interests at issue, he must consider whether the annulment of the contested decision by judgment in the main action would make it possible to reverse the situation that would have been brought about by its immediate implementation, and conversely whether suspension of the operation of that decision might prevent its being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed. The judge hearing the application for interim relief must also balance the respective interests of the parties in order to assess whether it is necessary to award interim relief in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant. In that regard, it must be remembered that, in principle, the requirements of the protection of public health must unquestionably be given precedence over economic considerations. Where a party has contributed to the creation of the damage complained of, by reason of possible negligence or omission, that may prevent the balance of interests from leaning in favour of the party in default.

see paras 105-107, 110
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible

(Art. 230 CE)

2. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act – Admissibility to be assessed in relation to the possibility of challenging the act at issue – Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on an external administrative investigation – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 9)

Summary

1. When exercising judicial review of legality under Article 230 EC, the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to issue directions to Community institutions.

(see para. 26)

2. In the context of an action for annulment, where the contested act is negative in character, it must be appraised in the light of the nature of the request to which it constitutes a reply. In particular, the refusal by a Community institution to withdraw or amend an act may constitute an act whose legality may be reviewed under Article 230 EC only if the act which the Community institution refuses to withdraw or amend could itself have been contested under that provision.

In that respect, a letter from the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), informing the applicant that it was impossible to investigate its complaint against a report on an external administrative investigation, cannot be regarded as a decision capable of being the subject-matter of an action, since that report does not constitute a measure having binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant, but is merely a recommendation or opinion without binding legal effects.

(see paras 30-33)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure of the Commission to investigate an alleged breach by a Member State of the principles set out in Article 6(1) EU and to propose that the Council initiate the proceedings laid down in Article 7 EU – Manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Community judicature

(Art. 232 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 108-116, 121

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 5)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the Council;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
Case T-346/03





Grégoire Krikorian and Others

v

European Parliament and Others





«(Non-contractual liability of the Community – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 17 December 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Acts attributable to the Community – Act of the European Council – Exclusion – Recognition of the Republic of Turkey's status as a candidate for accession to the European Union

(Arts 7 EC and 288, second para., EC)

2.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawful conduct of the institutions – Accession partnership of the Republic of Turkey – Admissibility in the light of a resolution of the European Parliament not having binding legal consequences – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Breach – None – Liability not incurred

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

3.. Procedure – Costs – Decision given by reasoned order – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law – Failure to ask for costs – Sharing of costs where the circumstances are exceptional

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 87(2)(3) and 111)

1.

2.

3.
Case T-264/03 R





Jürgen Schmoldt and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interlocutory proceedings – Admissibility – Urgency)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 28 November 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Admissibility of the main action – Irrelevant – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Provisional measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Standard of proof

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

1.

2.
52

Secondly, it must be noted from the outset that the wording of the third request, which seeks the suspension of ‘the inclusion by the Commission of nPB in the 29th adaptation to technical progress of Directive 67/548’, is particularly ambiguous. Since ‘the inclusion ... of nPB in the 29th adaptation to technical progress of Directive 67/548’ can only occur, literally, on the final adoption of that text, it appears that the third request must be interpreted as seeking the suspension of the implementation of the final text adopted by the Commission. Nevertheless, certain passages of the application for interim measures also seem to indicate that the applicants are in fact asking the President to prevent the Commission and/or the Regulatory Committee from exercising their legislative powers for the purpose of the 29th adaptation to technical progress of the Directive. That is the case in particular for the passages where the applicants state that they seek to prevent the adoption of the Commission's proposal to the Regulatory Committee.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2006 − Leali v Commission

(Case T-46/03 R II)

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Urgency – None

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 49)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 17 December 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (COMP/37.956 – concrete-reinforcing bars), inasmuch as it imposes upon the applicant, jointly and severally with Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA, in liquidation, a fine of EUR 6.093 million and, solely upon the applicant, a fine of EUR 1.082 million

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Keywords



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Financial evaluation system for tenders – Failure to comply with the administrative instructions of the tender documentation

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision to reject a bid in a tendering procedure – Financial loss and loss of prestige – Damage not capable of being considered irreparable – Lack of urgency

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Precise indication of the subject-matter of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(d) and 104(3))

Summary

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for interim measures must specify the subject-matter of the dispute, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. An applicant must also establish an interest in obtaining the measures sought.

(see paras 22, 52)

2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not generally be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, it may be necessary, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

(see para. 23)

3. An application which does not specify its subject-matter does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 44(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to which Article 104(3) of those rules refers and is thus inadmissible.

(see para. 50)
Only measures the legal effects of which are binding on and capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by having a significant effect on his legal position are measures against which proceedings for annulment may be brought. In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, particularly an internal procedure, only measures definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of that procedure may be contested, and not intermediate measures intended to pave the way for the final decision.

The preliminary stage of the procedure established by Article 88(3) EC and regulated by Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 is intended to allow the Commission a sufficient period of time for reflection and investigation for it to form a preliminary view of the aid plans notified to it, so that it can conclude, without any extensive review being called for, that they are compatible with the Treaty or find that their content raises doubts as to their compatibility.

The formal investigation procedure referred to in Article 88(2) EC and Article 6 of Regulation No 659/1999, which provides the Commission with all the information on the case before adopting its decision, is essential whenever the Commission has serious difficulties in determining whether an aid is compatible with the common market.

While its powers are circumscribed as far as initiating the formal procedure is concerned, the Commission nevertheless enjoys a certain margin of discretion in identifying and evaluating the circumstances of the case in order to determine whether or not they present serious difficulties. In accordance with the objective of Article 88(3) EC and with its duty of good administration, the Commission may, amongst other things, engage in a dialogue with the notifying State or with third parties in an endeavour to overcome, during the preliminary procedure, any difficulties encountered.

An examination of the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 shows that although the Commission has the power, in the context of the formal investigation procedure, to require a Member State to amend its aid plan in a particular manner, on pain of a declaration that the plan is incompatible with the common market, it does not have such power during the preliminary investigation phase and has no other option, apart from opening the formal procedure, than to adopt a decision not to raise any objections.

It follows that a letter sent by the Commission to the national authorities during the preliminary procedure, noting that a difficulty has arisen from the examination of the compatibility of the proposed plan and merely ‘requesting’ the national authorities to withdraw their proposal, as a free choice, forms part of that dialogue and does not constitute a measure producing binding legal effects but a measure which is purely preparatory to the final decision of the Commission.

(see paras 27-29, 30-36)