ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable harm - Obligation for certain milk producers who have not obtained reference quantities exempt from the additional levy to choose between accepting flat-rate compensation which they consider unsatisfactory and waiting for an indefinite period for compensation - Interim measures not appearing to be necessary after examination of the consequences of accepting the flat-rate compensation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2187/93)

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for that party to prove that he cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering harm which would involve serious and irreparable consequences.

The fact that milk producers seeking compensation for damage caused to them by the refusal, held by the Court to be unlawful, to allocate to them reference quantities exempt from the additional levy on the expiry of their non-marketing undertaking must either accept the flat-rate compensation provided for by Regulation No 2187/93 and relinquish any claim, or await the outcome of the actions for compensation brought by them before the Community judicature in order to obtain compensation, is not of such a nature as to expose them to the risk of suffering such harm.

Although it is true that a producer who is in debt and involved with proceedings brought by his creditors is not in a position to wait for an indefinite period for payment of damages, the acceptance of the offer of flat-rate compensation upon the conditions laid down in the abovementioned regulation does not necessarily signify the permanent loss of the right to obtain the more extensive compensation to which the producers concerned consider themselves to be entitled. That is due to the fact that, if, as those producers claim, the flat-rate compensation scheme provided for by the regulation is illegal, the annulment by the Community judicature of the contested provisions in the course of actions which have not been withdrawn will create a new situation which, as the defendant institutions expressly conceded at the hearing of the application for interim measures, will offer to all the producers concerned the possibility of claiming compensation calculated on the basis of a longer period than that adopted for the purposes of the flat-rate compensation. In that case, compensation might be calculated on the basis of actual losses, but that would not impair the rights of the producers concerned.

Accordingly, the application for interim measures must be dismissed since the acceptance by the applicants of the offer of flat-rate compensation provided for by Regulation No 2187/93 is not, in itself, of such a nature as to cause them serious and irreparable harm.
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 rules on State aid 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

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Financial damage

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for the interim measure. 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.

Damage of a purely financial nature, such as that suffered by an applicant for interim measures as a result of being denied the possibility of obtaining a contract under a Community programme, cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulations fixing for a given region the quantity of table wine to be distilled and the percentages of table wine produced to be delivered for compulsory distillation

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulations Nos 343/94 and 610/94)

Summary

The general scope and hence the legislative nature of a measure are not called in question by the fact that it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment with a greater or lesser degree of precision as long as it is established that it is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to the objective of the latter. In order for persons to be regarded as being individually concerned by the measure whose annulment they seek, their legal position must be affected by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and distinguish them individually in the same way as an addressee.

For the 1993/94 wine year both the quantity of table wine to be distilled in production region 4, namely Italy, under Regulation No 343/94 and the percentages of their production to be delivered for distillation by the winegrowers concerned under Regulation No 610/94 were determined on the basis of objective data relating to the characteristics of the wine year in question provided by the national authorities, without taking account of the specific situation of producers of table wine in the Veneto region. The provisions of the regulations in question are of concern to those producers only in their objective capacity as producers of table wine in the same way as any other economic operator in the same market and hence they are not entitled to challenge them by means of an action for annulment, since the requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty are not satisfied.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation specifying definitions, including that of "financial institutions", for the application of the prohibition laid down in Article 104a of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 104a, 173, fourth para., and 189; Council Regulation No 3604/93, Art. 4(2), last indent)

Summary

An action brought by a public organization of a Member State administering a compulsory welfare and assistance scheme against Regulation No 3604/93 on the application of the prohibition laid down in Article 104a of the Treaty of privileged access by public authorities to financial institutions, the last indent of Article 4(2) of which defines the concept of "financial institutions", stating that institutions forming part of the "general government sector" are not financial institutions, is inadmissible.

That regulation is a legislative measure by nature and by virtue of its sphere of application and does not therefore constitute a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty. It is sufficient to note in that respect that the definitions given in the regulation are framed in general and abstract terms and produce legal effects for categories of undertakings and institutions which are determined in a general and abstract way, and that a measure which deals with objective legal or factual situations defined in relation to its purpose does not lose its legislative character because the persons to which it applies were identifiable at the time it was adopted.

Nor does the situation meet the criteria which would enable the applicant to be regarded as individually concerned by the regulation, since, although it is obliged to put part of its resources at the disposal of the public treasury, its legal position is not affected by reason of circumstances in which it is differentiated from all other persons and which distinguish it individually in the same way as a person to whom a measure is addressed; it is in a situation comparable with that of any other non-financial undertaking or institution not entitled, as regards State levies on its resources, to the protection under Article 104a(1) of the Treaty, to which privileged access is or may be provided for by current or future legislation of a Member State.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 92(1))

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Participation of a number of lawyers

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

Summary

1 In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Community judicature must, for the purposes of the taxation of costs, assess in its discretion the relevant features 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 case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

In that connection, the ability of the Community judicature to assess the value of the work done by a lawyer depends on the preciseness of the information provided.

2 Although, in principle, only the remuneration of a single lawyer may be regarded as falling within the concept of `expenses necessarily incurred' within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the primary consideration is none the less the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question.
Case T-367/94

British Coal Corporation

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure — Request for production of a document’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 18 November 1997 II-2104

Summary of the Order

Procedure — Measures of inquiry — Request for production of a document — Dismissed — Document not relevant for the purposes of the dispute

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64(3)(d) and 65(b))
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 13 December 1999. - Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd, Matchbox Toys (UK) Ltd, Matchbox Collectibles Ltd, Tyco Distribution Europe NV, Tyco Manufacturing Europe Inc, Matchbox Spielwaren, Matchbox Collectibles GmbH, Tyco Toys France SA, Tyco Toys España SA, Tyco Toys Deutschland GmbH and Playtime Toys (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union. - Common commercial policy - Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and No 747/94 - Import quotas for certain toys from People's Republic of China - Action manifestly unfounded in law. - Case T-268/94.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-03569



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))
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 12 December 1997. - Detlef Nölle v Council of the European Union et Commission of the European Communities. - Taxation of costs. - Case T-167/94 (92).



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02379



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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation fixing a specific agricultural conversion rate in the sugar sector - No rate fixed for a Member State - Action by a grower and a growers' association in that State - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulation No 1734/95)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by a sugar beet grower against Regulation No 1734/95 fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector is inadmissible in so far as that regulation does not fix a conversion rate applicable to the Member State from which the grower in question comes.

That regulation is, by its very nature, of general application. It applies by reason of an objective situation and produces legal effects vis-à-vis categories of persons considered in a general and abstract manner. A measure does not lose its nature as a regulation where the number and identity of the traders concerned might in theory have been known to the institution responsible for the measure at the time when it was adopted, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to its purpose. The fact that a measure applying objectively may have different specific effects on various categories of traders is also not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation.

Nor are the conditions satisfied which would allow the applicant to be regarded as individually concerned by that regulation, since he is not affected in his legal position by reason of circumstances in which he is differentiated from all other persons and distinguished individually as in the case of an addressee, in view of the fact that he is concerned only in his objective capacity as a grower within the sugar sector in the same way as any other grower in that sector.

An action for annulment brought against that same regulation by an association of sugar beet growers is also inadmissible since such an association is not entitled to bring an action where its members may not do so individually, the defence of common interests being insufficient in that regard.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Costs incurred during administrative proceedings relating to competition - Costs incurred after the oral procedure - Excluded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

Summary

1. Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Community Court and, second, to those which are necessary for that purpose.

Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance refers only to proceedings before that Court, to the exclusion of any prior stage. It follows that a claim for taxation of costs, seeking payment of costs relating to the administrative proceedings before the Commission in relation to competition, must be rejected.

Likewise, recovery must be refused of costs relating to the period after the day of the oral procedure since no procedural step was taken after that date. The costs incurred after that date do not appear to be directly connected to the defence before the Community Court and cannot, therefore, be regarded as costs necessary for the purpose of the proceedings, within the meaning of Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure.

( see paras 28-31 )

2. The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Community Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers. Since there are no Community provisions laying down fee-scales, the Community Court must make an unfettered assessment of 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 which the dispute has caused the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

The significance of a case from the point of view of Community law by reason of the new questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify high fees and a party's being represented by a number of lawyers.

( see paras 32-33, 37 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Social policy - European Social Fund - Financial assistance for vocational training operations - Reduction of assistance initially granted - Exclusive power of the Commission - Transfer of the Community's rights to the Member States provided for in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 2950/83 - Purpose

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1) and (2))

2 Actions for annulment of measures - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Act neither published nor notified to the applicant - Precise knowledge of the content and grounds - Obligation, once the existence of the act is known, to ask for the full text thereof within a reasonable period

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

Summary

3 Although any national authority which has competence with regard to the financing of European Social Fund operations may, in a final payment claim submitted in accordance with Article 5(4) of Regulation No 2950/83 on the implementation of Decision 83/516 on the tasks of the Fund, propose to reduce financial assistance granted by the Fund, it is, however, the Commission which takes the decision on final payment claims and it is the Commission, and the Commission alone, which has the power to reduce financial assistance in accordance with Article 6(1) of that regulation. It follows that it is the Commission which assumes, vis-à-vis the recipient, the legal responsibility for the decision by which its assistance was reduced, irrespective of whether that reduction was or was not proposed by the national authority concerned.

Furthermore, the transfer of rights referred to in Article 6(2) of the regulation does not affect in any way the power under Article 6(1) to reduce European Social Fund assistance but only the rights of the Community to the refund of advances improperly paid, so that the transfer of rights necessarily presupposes a prior Commission decision reducing the assistance.

4 Where an act is not published or notified, the period within which proceedings for annulment are to be instituted cannot start to run until the third party concerned has precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the act in question, provided however that he asks, within a reasonable period from the date at which he becomes aware of its existence, for the full text of the act in question.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 22 March 1999. - Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European Union. - Taxation of costs. - Case T-97/95 (92).



European Court reports 1999 Page II-00743



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Object

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

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

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

3 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Intervener

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

Summary

1 In proceedings concerning the taxation of costs, the Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs.

2 Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Community judicature must consider all 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 and 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 in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

3 In proceedings concerning the taxation of costs, where the action has been brought by an intervener, it must be borne in mind that, since an intervention is, by definition, subordinate to the main action, only in exceptional cases will it present the same difficulties.