ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Time-limits for bringing an action - Calculation

(Art. 230, fifth subpara.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 101(1)(a) and 102(1))

Summary

$$The interpretation of the Community rules on time-limits for bringing proceedings, according to which, regardless of the hour of day at which the measure in question is notified, time does not begin to run until the end of the day of notification, also applies to Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, regarding time-limits which begin to run from the publication of the contested measure, which states that those periods are to be calculated, for the purposes of Article 101(1)(a) of the Rules from the end of the 14th day after publication.

Article 102(1) of the Rules therefore allows the applicant 14 full days as well as the normal period of two months, and the day from which the time-limit is calculated is, therefore, postponed until the 14th day following publication of the measure in question.

( see paras 14-15 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing legal effects - Commission decision refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure into State aid, provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of aid already declared compatible with the common market and not challenged within the time-limits prescribed - Excluded - Inadmissible - Limits

(Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 9)

Summary

$$The formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC precedes the adoption of a decision on the compatibility of State aid with the common market. Such a procedure is initiated by the Commission when it takes the view, after a preliminary examination, that the measure notified gives rise to doubts as to its compatibility with the common market or when it intends to revoke a decision declaring State aid to be compatible with the common market under Article 9 of Regulation No 659/1999 on the ground that that decision is based on incorrect information which was submitted during the procedure and which was a determining factor for the purposes of that decision.

If a Commission decision declares State aid to be compatible with the Treaty without initiating the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC, and if an interested party seeks to safeguard its procedural rights under the same provision, that party must bring an action before the Community judicature against that decision within the time-limit prescribed in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC. Since a decision on the compatibility of State aid with the common market was adopted and was not annulled following an action brought before the Community judicature, there can be no question, subject to the application of Article 9 of Regulation No 659/1999, of initiating the formal investigation procedure. In such circumstances, the refusal to initiate a formal investigation procedure does not constitute an act producing legal effects with regard to the party concerned since it only confirms the two decisions authorising the aid.

( see paras 32-34, 40 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility — Extent of its discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-22)

2. State aid — Concept — Measures intended to compensate for structural disadvantages borne by undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Adverse effect on competition — State measures seeking to approximate the conditions of competition, in a certain economic sector, with those prevailing in other Member States — Not permissible (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 29, 30)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Limits (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 32, 33, 37)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme in its general characteristics — Lawfulness — Low amount of aid and exercise of activities of undertakings beneficial at the local level — Aid capable of affecting intra-Community trade and causing a distortion of competition — Irrelevant (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 37, 42-44)

5. State aid — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Diligent and impartial examination of the complaints — Assessment of legality of the Commission’s decision by reference to information available at the time it was adopted (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 38, 39)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for the development of particular areas — Exclusion of operating aid save in exceptional circumstances (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 48, 49)

7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 53, 54, 57, 60)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance.

2. The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. La Navale Soc. coop. rl is ordered to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

13 November 2001

Case T-138/01 R

F

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

‛Rectification of the order of 21 September 2001 — Article 84(1) of the Rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance — Time-limit — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-987

Application for:

rectification of an order.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

Summary

Procedure — Rectification of an order — Criteria for the admissibility of the application — Time-limit — Application made by fax — Time-limit for lodging the signed original — Signature on the letter received at the Court Registry different from that on the fax — Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43(6) and 84(1))

Under Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the time-limit for an application for rectification to be made by a party is two weeks. In addition, pursuant to Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that time-limit must be extended by a single period on account of distance.

With regard to the prescribed time-limits which apply to the written procedure, Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure states that, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 5, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading, including the schedule of documents referred to in paragraph 4, is received at the Registry by telefax is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading, accompanied by the annexes and copies referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days thereafter.

Where a letter received at the Court Registry and containing an application for rectification is not identical to the telefax already received, because the signature affixed at the bottom of the document is different, and is therefore not the original of the telefax received, Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure does not apply. In those circumstances, the application for rectification must be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 4-5, 8-9, 11 and operative part)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Power conferred on the President by Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Scope - Protective measures sought in response to a Commission decision adopting provisional measures under Regulation No 17 - Not relevant

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 105(2); Council Regulation No 17)

Summary

$$Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance permits the judge hearing an application for interim measures, either where it is necessary to enable him to have enough time to be sufficiently informed so as to be in a position to judge a complex factual and/or legal situation raised by the application before him, or where it is desirable in the interests of the proper administration of justice that the status quo be maintained pending a decision on the application, to adopt provisional interim measures. The scope of the power granted by that provision does not necessarily fall to be interpreted differently where the decision in respect of which provisional interim relief is sought is one in which interim measures have been adopted by the Commission pending the termination of an investigation under Regulation No 17 concerning an alleged infringement of Community competition law.

( see para. 20 )
Although the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC of the Treaty makes no express provision regarding the admissibility of actions brought by private persons for annulment of a directive, that fact in itself is not sufficient to render such actions inadmissible. The Community institutions cannot, merely by means of their choice of legal instrument, deprive individuals of the judicial protection which is afforded them by that provision of the Treaty. Moreover, in certain circumstances even a legislative measure which applies to economic operators generally may be of direct and individual concern to some of them.

For an individual to be directly affected, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Community measure challenged must directly produce effects on his legal position and leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure who are entrusted with its implementation, that being a purely automatic matter flowing solely from the Community legislation without the application of other intermediate rules. This means that, where a Community measure is addressed to a Member State by an institution, if the action to be taken by the Member State in response to the measure is automatic or is, at all events, a foregone conclusion, then the measure is of direct concern to any person affected by that action. If, on the other hand, the measure leaves it to the Member State whether or not to act, it is the action or inaction of the Member State that is of direct concern to the person affected, not the measure itself. In other words, the measure in question must not depend for its effect on the exercise of a discretionary power by a third party, unless it is obvious that any such power is bound to be exercised in a particular way.

In that respect, Article 7 of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, which prohibits the use of certain descriptions on the packaging of such products, does not bring about any change in the legal position of two companies manufacturing and marketing cigarettes under a trade mark until such time as that article is transposed into the national law of at least one Member State, or until the expiry of the period prescribed for its transposition, such companies remaining the owners and licensees of the trade mark and continuing to be entitled to use it in order to market cigarettes in the Community.

(see paras 45-47)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Irreparability of the damage - Pecuniary damage - Situation likely to jeopardise the existence of the applicant undertaking - Assessment with regard to the situation of the group

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; 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 order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure.

Save in exceptional circumstances, pecuniary damage cannot be regarded as irreparable or even as reparable only with difficulty since it may be the subject of subsequent financial compensation. Such subsequent financial compensation results either from compliance by the institution concerned with the judgment delivered in the main proceedings declaring the act concerned to be void or, if that does not occur in whole or part, from compensation as a result of the remedies provided for under Articles 235 EC and 288 EC. In that connection, the mere possibility of bringing an action for damages is sufficient to show that pecuniary damage is in principle reparable. There is, therefore, no need to take account of the uncertainty as to whether a possible action for damages - which the applicant could bring if the contested measure were annulled - would succeed when determining whether the pecuniary loss that the applicant will suffer is reparable or not.

Pecuniary damage is irreparable if it appears that, in the absence of the interim measure sought, the existence of the applicant would be jeopardised pending delivery of the final judgment in the main proceedings. In assessing the financial viability of the applicant, account may be taken of its material circumstances, in particular, of the characteristics of the group to which, by virtue of its shareholding structure, it forms part.

( see paras 44, 51-53, 57 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative requirements — Balancing of all the interests involved — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for interim measures shall state the subject-matter of the proceedings, 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 the suspension of operation of a measure must be dismissed if one of them is not fulfilled. The court hearing the application shall also, where appropriate, balance the interests involved.

see para. 38
Case T-10/01





Lichtwer Pharma AG

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Opposition – Opposition withdrawn – No need to adjudicate)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 3 July 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against the rejection of a trade mark application following an opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Action rendered devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2.. Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Permissible at any time

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 42 to 44)

1.

2.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

17 October 2002

Case T-215/02 R

Santiago Gómez-Reino

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official’

Full text in French II-1019

Application for:

interim measures, seeking orders for, first, the production of certain documents, second, the suspension of a series of decisions adopted or the prohibition of adoption of future decisions concerning internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, third, the adoption of measures under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities

Held:

The application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

The issue of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in a procedure for interim relief, but must be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. To rule on admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not, at first sight, clearly inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action. (see para. 26) See: T-196/98 R Peña Abizanda and Others v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-5 and II-15 para 10 and the case-law cited; T-208/00 R Barleycorn Mongolite and Boixader Rivas v Parliament and Council (20001 ECRSC I-A-209 and II-941, para. 13

Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for an interim measure must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure 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. (see para. 27) See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18

In actions brought by officials, a claim for compensation for material or nonmaterial damage must be rejected where it is closely related to a claim for annulment which has itself been rejected either as inadmissible or as unfounded. (see para. 55) See: T-273/94 N v Commission [1997] ECRSC I-A-97 and II-289, para. 159; T-386/00 Gonçalves v Parliament [2002] ECRSC I-A-13 and II-55, para. 92
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative requirements — Balancing of all the interests involved — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. State aid — Investigation by the Commission — Breach, when adopting a decision to open the formal review procedure, of the requirement to act within a reasonable time — Not sufficient to render the final decision unlawful — (Art. 88(2) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Factors capable of being taken into consideration — (Arts 88(2) EC and 242 EC)

Summary

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that 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 interim measures must be dismissed if any one of them is not fulfilled. The court hearing the application for interim measures shall also, where appropriate, weigh up the interests involved.

see para. 53

2. Whilst the conducting of administrative procedures within a reasonable period is a general principle of Community law, compliance with which is enforced by the Community judicature, and that right is reiterated, as an element of the right to good administration, by Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the mere fact that a decision opening the formal review procedure under Article 88(2) EC was adopted after the expiry of a reasonable period is not sufficient to render a decision taken by the Commission at the conclusion of that procedure unlawful.

see para. 65

3. When examining an application for suspension of operation of the obligation to repay an alleged State aid, imposed by a decision taken under Article 88(2) EC and resulting from a contested breaking-off of the formal investigation procedure which preceded its adoption and the adoption of another decision to which it is linked, and the suspension of operation of which is also applied for in separate proceedings for interim relief, the court hearing the application may, for the purposes of examining the urgency of the application, consider it appropriate to take account of the overall situation arising for the applicant from the operation of both decisions.

see para. 91
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Commencement — Notification — Decision to conclude a research contract — Existence of a dispute between the managing bodies of the organisation to which the decision was addressed and one of its employees — Not relevant — (Art. 230, fifth para., EC)

Summary

The mere fact that there is a dispute between the managing bodies of an organisation to which a Commission decision was addressed and one of its employees as to the extent of the latter ' s powers, and in particular as to his authority to commit the organisation vis-a-vis third parties, cannot allow that organisation to distance itself from a contract by arguing that, since the employee did not have the capacity to represent the organisation, notification of the contract to that employee could not activate the time-limit for bringing an action for annulment.

see paras 27-28
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2006 – Établissements Toulorge v Parliament and Council

(Case T-167/02)

Action for damages – Non-contractual liability – Marketing of compound feedingstuffs for animals – Actual damage

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/2, Art. 1(1)(b) and (4) (see paras 22, 28-30, 32)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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