ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Procedure before the Court of First Instance - Parties entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents - Scope

(Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance, Art. 5(3))

2 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Consideration of the admissibility of the main application - Inappropriate - Limits

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

3 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial damage

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

Summary

1 Under the rules governing procedure before the Court of First Instance and the third subparagraph of Article 5(3) of the Instructions to the Registrar, parties are entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents. It follows that the parties to a case are entitled to use the procedural documents of other parties only for the purpose of pursuing their own case.

2 In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application is not to be examined in proceedings for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. None the less, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for a prima facie finding that the main application is admissible. In that regard, it is particularly important to ensure that the applicants do not obtain, through proceedings for interim relief, the benefit of measures to which they would not be entitled if their action were declared inadmissible by the Court when it examines the substance of the case.

3 The condition (for the grant of interim relief) relating to the existence of a risk of serious and irreparable damage is not satisfied where the applicant undertaking alleges solely damage of a financial nature and does not adduce any evidence to justify a prima facie finding that the damage in question would be such as to threaten its survival or to cause it serious and irreparable harm and that it could not therefore be fully compensated in the event of the main action succeeding.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

22 May 2000

Case T-96/99

Peter F. Fleurbaay

v

European Investment Bank

‛European Investment Bank (EIB) — Actions by servants — Challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-415

Application for:

annulment of the decision taken by the European Investment Bank by letter of 18 February 1999 from its Chairman.

Held:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties shall bear their own costs. The Kingdom of the Netherlands shall bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Act having no binding legal effects — Letter from the European Investment Bank informing the applicant of the action it intends to take following a recommendation of the Conciliation Board — Exclusion

The fact that a letter has been sent by a Community institution to its addressee, in response to a request made by the latter, is not enough for it to be treated as a decision. Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the interests of the applicant by significantly altering his legal position constitute challengeable acts.

A letter whereby an institution informs the person concerned of the action it intends to take following an act having no binding legal effects does not produce such legal effects and cannot therefore be treated as a challengeable act.

Therefore an action for annulment of a letter whereby the European Investment Bank informed a former member of its staff of the action it intended to take following a recommendation of the Conciliation Board must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, since such a letter does not alter the applicant's legal position.

(see paras 26 to 30)

See: C-25/92 Miethke v Parliament [1993] ECR I-473, para. 10; T-29/93 Calvo Alonso-Cortés v Commission [1993] ECR II-1389, para. 43; T-5/96 Sveriges Betodlares and Henrikson v Commission [1996] ECR II-1299, para. 26; T-22/98 Scottish Sofi Fruit Growers v Commission [1998] ECR II-4219, para. 34
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 1999. - Pacific Fruit Company NV, Leon Van Parijs NV, Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA and Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Application for additional import licences - Procedure for interim relief - Manifestly inadmissible. - Case T-11/99 R.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01355



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Procedure before the Court of First Instance - Parties entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents - Scope

(Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance, Art. 5(3))

2 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Consideration of the admissibility of the main application - Inappropriate - Limits

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

3 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial damage

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

Summary

1 Under the rules governing procedure before the Court of First Instance and the third subparagraph of Article 5(3) of the Instructions to the Registrar, parties are entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents. It follows that the parties to a case are entitled to use the procedural documents of other parties only for the purpose of pursuing their own case.

2 In principle, the issue of the admissibility of the main application is not to be examined in proceedings for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. None the less, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for a prima facie finding that the main application is admissible. In that regard, it is particularly important to ensure that the applicants do not obtain, through proceedings for interim relief, the benefit of measures to which they would not be entitled if their action were declared inadmissible by the Court when it examines the substance of the case.

3 The condition (for the grant of interim relief) relating to the existence of a risk of serious and irreparable damage is not satisfied where the applicant undertaking alleges solely damage of a financial nature and does not adduce any evidence to justify a prima facie finding that the damage in question would be such as to threaten its survival or to cause it serious and irreparable harm and that it could not therefore be fully compensated in the event of the main action succeeding.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for failure to act - Omission repaired after commencement of proceedings - Purpose ceases to exist - Case not proceeding to judgment

(EC Treaty, Art. 175 (now Art. 232 EC))

2. Actions for failure to act - Community institution - European Ombudsman - Not an institution - Action claiming that the Ombudsman failed to act - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 4, 4a, 4b, and 175, third para. (now Arts 7 EC, 8 EC, 9 EC and 232, third para., EC); Decision of the European Parliament 94/262, Art. 11(4))

3. Actions for failure to act - Natural and legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure by the European Ombudsman to submit to the Parliament a report finding a case of maladministration in the activities of the Commission - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art 138e and 175 (now Arts 195 EC and 232 EC))

Summary

1. When, in the context of an action for failure to act, the act whose omission is the subject-matter of the dispute has been adopted after the lodging of the application but before the delivery of a judgment, the application is deprived of its purpose with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.

( see para. 41 )

2. It follows from both Articles 4, 4a and 4b of the Treaty (now Articles 7 EC, 8 EC, and 9 EC) and from Article 11(4) of Decision 94/262 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties, which, in matters concerning his staff, gives the Ombudsman the same status as the institutions within the meaning of Article 1 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, that the European Ombudsman is not a Community institution within the meaning of Article 175 of the Treaty (now Article 232 EC), so that an action for failure to act, to the extent that it refers to a failure to act on the Ombudsman's part, must be declared inadmissible.

( see paras 44-46 )

3. An action brought under Article 175 of the Treaty (now Article 232 EC) by a natural or legal person must be dismissed as inadmissible where the only measure by which the applicant could have gained satisfaction would have been, under Article 138e of the Treaty (now Article 195 EC), the submission by the European Ombudsman to the Parliament of a report finding a case of maladministration in the activities of the Commission, such a report not being capable of being classified, by reason of its form or its nature, as a measure capable of being challenged in annulment proceedings.

( see para. 51 )
The question of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in proceedings 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 determine admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not prima facie entirely inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the Court's decision on the main action.

Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that applications 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 measures applied for. Those requirements are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of operation must be dismissed if one of them is not met. Where necessary, the court hearing an application for interim relief also balances the interests at stake.

The condition relating to urgency is not met by a request for suspension of operation of a notice of competition, submitted in the context of an action seeking the annulment of that notice, since the damage alleged by the applicants who have submitted their candidature — namely, the impossibility of participating in the tests — has not yet materialised, the selection board not having yet decided whether or not to admit them to the competition.

Moreover, with regard to the balancing of the interests involved, such damage cannot outweigh the inconvenience and harm to which the defendant institutions and the remaining candidates would be subject as a result of the suspension of operation of the competition and which could not be remedied if the main action were subsequently dismissed.

(see paras 14, 41-42)

See: 161/87 R Muysers and Tülp v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 2381, para. 13; T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18; T-167/99 R Guilietti v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-139 and II-751, para. 31; T-173/99 R Elkaïm and Mazuel v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-155 and II-811, paras 18 and 28
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

3 July 2000

Case T-163/00 R

Rosemarie Carotti

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

‛Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility’

Full text in French II-607

Application for:

suspension of operation of the decision of 15 May 2000 relieving the applicant of her position as team leader in the Italian section of the translation service

Held:

Application for interim relief dismissed. Costs reserved.

Summary

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage

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

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 not sufficient for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to allege merely that the measure of which suspension is sought is imminent or has just been put into effect; it is also necessary for the applicant to put forward circumstances of such a nature as to establish a case of urgency, that is to say, to show that in the absence of an order suspending the operation of the measure serious and irreparable damage would be caused to that party.

(see paras 7 and 8)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Interim measures - Conditions of granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof - Commission decision reducing Community financial aid - Recipient's rights adversely affected - Account taken of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs

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

Summary

$$The urgent nature of an application for interim relief must be assessed in relation to the need to make an interim order in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking that relief. It falls to that party to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind.

As regards the consequences of delaying payment of the balance of Community financial aid, it should be pointed out that prejudice to the rights of persons regarded as being recipients of aid is inherent in any decision by the Commission requiring its reduction and cannot in itself be considered to constitute serious and irreparable damage, independently of a concrete assessment of the gravity and the irreparable nature of the alleged damage in each case considered. While it is true that, in order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage, it is not necessary to require that the occurrence of the damage should be established with absolute certainty and that it is sufficient for that damage to be predictable with a sufficient degree of probability, the party seeking the measure is still required to prove the facts alleged to form the basis of the likelihood of such serious and irreparable damage.

In considering the financial viability of a limited liability company managed on a family basis, an assessment of its financial situation may be made, in particular, by taking into consideration characteristics of the group to which its shareholders belong.

( see paras 32-34, 39 )
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Decision withdrawing marketing authorisation for a medicinal product

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Balancing of all the interests involved - Decision withdrawing marketing authorisation for a medicinal product

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

Operative part

hereby orders:

1. Operation of the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use which contain phentermine (C(2000) 452) is suspended with respect to the applicant.

2. Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

6 July 2001

Case T-161/00

Vassilios Tsarnavas

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Action for annulment and damages — Withdrawal of the contested decision in the course of proceedings — Adoption of a new decision — No need to give a ruling — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-721

Application for:

first, annulment of the decision of 13 August 1999 not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotion procedure and of the Commission's decision of 22 September 2000 refusing to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotion procedure and, second, compensation for alleged nonmaterial damage.

Held:

There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the claims for annulment. The remainder of the action is inadmissible. The Commission is to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant up to 10 November 2000.

Summary

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Subject-matter of the proceedings — Amendment in the course of the proceedings — Permissible in certain circumstances — Matters of fact or of law coming to light in the course of the procedure — Obligation to follow the pre-litigation procedure in staff cases

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, under which new pleas in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings if they are based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure, may be applied, in certain cases, to the amendment of pleadings. By virtue of the requirements of procedural economy, when the contested act is replaced, in the course of proceedings, by an act having the same subject-matter, the latter constitutes a new factor enabling the applicants to amend their pleadings.

Although it is therefore possible that, in exceptional cases, new pleadings may be admissible where they seek the annulment of a decision which, in the course of the procedure, replaces a decision having the same subject-matter, that cannot constitute a legitimate basis for reviewing the legality of a decision against which an action for annulment would be premature and therefore inadmissible.

In that regard, where, in response to a complaint, the appointing authority withdraws a decision not to promote an official, has his case reconsidered by the competent authorities in the light of certain factors which were not known at the time of adoption of the first decision, and then adopts a new decision, that new decision may not be challenged in court proceedings without having been the subject-matter of a pre-litigation procedure.

(see paras 26-27, 30, 32)

See: 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749, para. 8; 103/85 Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter v Commission [1988] ECR 4131, para. 11; T-161/95 Lino Liao v Council, not published in ECR, para. 30; T-23/96 De Persio v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-483 and II-1413, para. 31
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark - Appeals procedure - Action against the rejection of the opposition to an application for a trade mark - Withdrawal of the application for a trade mark - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Summary

$$The withdrawal of an application to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for a Community trade mark renders devoid of purpose an action before the Court of First Instance contesting the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office rejecting the opposition to that application, so that there is no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate.

( see paras 5, 9, 12 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on biocidal products - Action brought by a producer - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 1896/2000, Art. 6(2); Parliament and Council Directive 98/8, Art. 16(2))

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Possible absence of remedies - No effect on the system of remedies and the conditions for admissibility of an annulment action

Summary

1. The action brought by a producer of biocidal products against Regulation No 1896/2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8 on biocidal products is inadmissible.

The Regulation is addressed to all those who have an interest in the identification and notification of existing active substances and biocidal products containing those substances and not only operators who placed a biocidal product containing existing active substances on the market before 14 May 2000. In particular, Article 6(2) of the Regulation allows all producers and formulators to continue or to begin marketing existing active substances and biocidal products containing those substances for the product type(s) for which the Commission has accepted at least one notification. Since access to the identification procedures and/or notification procedures is not reserved exclusively for the operator serving a specific part of the market, the Regulation cannot be regarded as being of individual concern to the applicant.

( see paras 48, 50, 55 )

2. The possible absence of remedies cannot justify an amendment by way of judicial interpretation of the system of remedies and procedures laid down in the Treaty. In no case does it allow an annulment action brought by a natural or legal person to be declared admissible where it does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

( see para. 54 )