ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

30 September 2002

Case T-25/01

Francisco Miguel Viana França

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Special leave for elections — Travelling time — Supporting documents — Lack of competence — Obligation to cooperate and act in good faith — Principle of proportionality — Action manifestly unfounded in law’

Full text in Portuguese II-951

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 31 March 2000 refusing to grant the applicant travelling time in connection with special leave for elections.

Held:

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to bear all the costs.

Summary

Officials — Appointing authority — Powers — Exercise — Sub-delegation — Whether permissible — Conditions (Staff Regulations, Art. 2) Officials — Leave — Special leave — Special leave for elections — Travelling time — Reduction in the case of travel by air — Lawfulness (Staff Regulations, Art. 57, second para. ; Annex V, Art. 7) Officials — Internal directive of an institution — Amendment — Whether permissible — Condition — Compliance with the Staff Regulations
Keywords



Keywords

1. Procedure - Intervention - Time-limits - Method of calculation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 101, 102(2), 115(1) and 116(6))

2. Procedure - Intervention - Persons concerned - Dispute concerning the annulment of regulations fixing the quantity to be attributed to operators under the tariff quotas for imports of bananas - Operators - Whether admissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.)

3. Procedure - Intervention - Communication of the procedural documents to interveners - Derogation - Confidential treatment

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

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative requirements – Weighing-up of all the interests involved

(Art. 242 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 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 operation must be dismissed if either one of them is not satisfied. Where appropriate, the judge hearing such an application must also weigh up the interests involved.

(see para. 26)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

25 November 2003

((Esprit Programme – Activities in the field of research and technological development – Community financing – Allowable costs – Arbitration clause – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Counterclaim – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),

makes the following

Order

Facts

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

─ annul the provisions contained in the Commission's letters of 12 and 21 February 2001 in so far as they refuse to recognise as allowable the expenses incurred by the applicant between 1 May 1996 and 31 October 1997 for the REGIS contract and between 1 November 1996 and 31 October 1997 for the Refiag contract;

─ in the alternative, hold the Commission jointly and severally liable for any improper performance of the contract and subsequently review the amounts accounted for in the decision of 21 February 2001, reducing those relating to expenses not recognised as allowable, to the applicant's detriment, in an amount not less than ITL 600 million, the exact amount to be quantified by the Court on equitable principles;

─ order the Commission to pay the costs.

31

─ reject the applicant's main claim as inadmissible or unfounded;

─ reject the applicant's alternative claim as unfounded;

─ on a counterclaim, declare that the applicant is required to pay to the Commission the sum of ITL 1 099 405 866 (EUR 567 796);

─ on a counterclaim, order the applicant to pay the above sum together with default interest in accordance with Article 94 of Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (OJ 1993 L 315, p. 1), repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1);

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

32

─ reject the Commission's counterclaim as inadmissible;

─ grant the forms of order sought by the applicant in its application.

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

1.

2.

3.

H. Jung V. Tiili
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

6 December 2002

Case T-275/02 R

D

v

European Investment Bank

‛Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency — No urgency’

Full text in French II-1295

Application for:

suspension of operation of the European Investment Bank's decisions respectively extending the probationary period of the applicant and dismissing the applicant.

Held:

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

Summary

In principle the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures so as not to prejudge the substance of that case. Where, however, it is contended that the main application from which the application for interim measures is derived is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish the existence of certain factors which would justify the prima facie conclusion that the main application is admissible. (see para. 21) See: 376/87 R Distrivet v Council [1988] ECR 209. para. 21; T-222/99 R Martinez and de Gaulle v Parliament [1999] ECR II-3397, para. 60

The conciliation procedure provided for in Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank is purely optional and takes place independently of the action brought before the Court. Consequently, any failure to refer a matter first to the Conciliation Board is not such as to render the action for annulment of a decision inadmissible. (see para. 29) See: T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 DE Nicola v EIB [2001] ECRSC I-A-49 and II-185, paras 96, 101 and 102; T-192/99 Dunnett and Others v EIB [2001] ECR II-813, para. 54
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects in relation to the substance of the measure — Informal letter from the Commission responding to a Member State ' s informal initiative — Exclusion — (Art. 230 EC)

Summary

The mere fact that a letter is 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 within the meaning of Article 230 EC, thereby entitling its recipient to bring an action for its annulment. Furthermore, only measures with binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position, are capable of being the subject-matter of an application for annulment under Article 230 EC. To determine whether an act or decision produces such effects, it is necessary to look to its substance.

A Commission reply to a letter from the authorities of a Member State cannot be interpreted as an act in the nature of a decision where it is clear from their form and content and from the identity of their authors that that letter and that reply are only the expression, respectively, of an informal initiative on the part of those authorities seeking to obtain, at the end of an unofficial review, an amendment to a Commission decision declaring State aid compatible with the common market, and a reply, also informal, to that initiative, formulated by the Commission ' s staff with responsibility for State aid.

see paras 42-45
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

15 July 2003

Case T-371/02

Bernard Barbé

v

European Parliament

‛Attachment of earnings procedure — Failure to pay to the attachment creditor deductions from salary made prior to termination of attachment of earnings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-919

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Parliament not to pay to the applicant the sum corresponding to the deductions made from the salary of his ex-wife between March and November 1998.

Held:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Action against a decision not to pay an official who is an attachment creditor deductions made from the salary of another official by way of attachment of earnings — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

An action based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations seeking the annulment of a decision of an institution not to pay to the applicant official a sum corresponding to the deductions made from the salary of another official by way of attachment of earnings is founded on an incorrect legal basis and is therefore inadmissible.

The attachment proceedings arise out of a private legal relationship between the applicant and another private individual. In those proceedings, which are not governed by the Staff Regulations, the institution is involved only as a third party, in its capacity as employer of the attachment debtor.

The fact that the applicant, who is the attachment creditor, is an official of the Community institution which is the attached third party is not sufficient to change the capacity in which the institution is involved.

(see paras 36, 38)

See: T-497/93 Hogan v Court of Justice [1995] ECR II-703, paras 38, 39 and 60
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Failure after commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate

(Arts 232 EC and 233 EC)

Summary

The remedy provided for in Article 232 EC is founded on the premiss that the unlawful inaction on the part of the institution concerned enables the matter to be brought before the Court of Justice in order to obtain a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the Treaty, in so far as it has not been repaired by the institution concerned. The effect of that declaration, under Article 233 EC, is that the defendant institution is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance, without prejudice to any actions to establish non-contractual liability to which the aforesaid declaration may give rise. Where the act whose absence constitutes the subject-matter of the proceedings was adopted after the action was brought but before judgment, a declaration by the Community Court to the effect that the initial failure to act is unlawful can no longer bring about the consequences prescribed by Article 233 EC. It follows that in such a case, as in cases where the defendant institution has responded within a period of two months after being called upon to act, the subject-matter of the action has ceased to exist and there is no longer any need for the Court to give a decision.

(see para. 31)
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
Case T-154/02





Villiger Söhne GmbH

v

Council of the European Union





«(Action for annulment – Article 3, point 1, and Article 4(2), first indent of Directive 2002/10/EC – Structure and rate of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco – Manifest inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 30 April 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Council Directive 2002/10 amending Directives 92/79, 92/80 and 95/59 as regards the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco – Amendment of the definition of cigars and cigarillos – Action by a company manufacturing and marketing the products concerned by that amendment – Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 2002/10, Arts 3, point 1, and 4(2), first indent)

2.. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Acts of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to use the objection of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling seeking assessment of validity – Bringing of an action for annulment before the Community judicature where reference for a preliminary ruling ineffective – Excluded

(Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC)

1.

2.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

5 November 2003

((State aid – Multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment projects – Request for amendment to a decision declaring aid compatible with the common market – The Commission's reply – Not in the nature of a decision – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),

makes the following

Order

Legal background

1

2

3

4

5

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)

1.

2.

H. Jung V. Tiili
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

25 November 2003

Case T-339/03 R

Gabrielle Clotuche

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Application for interim relief — Officials — Decision reassigning the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser — Urgency — None’

Full text in French II-1423

Application for:

suspension of operation of the decision of 9 July 2003 to reassign the applicant to the post of Principal Adviser at the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and of the decision of 1 October 2003 reorganising Eurostat and, second, for an order that the Commission take the steps necessary to enable the applicant to resume her functions as Director as soon as possible.

Held:

The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Nonmaterial damage which cannot be remedied more satisfactorily by means of interim relief than by a ruling on the substance — None

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

The purpose of the procedure for interim relief is not to ensure that damage is made good but to ensure that the judgment on the substance takes full effect. In order to attain that objective the relief sought must be urgent in the sense that, in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the interests of the applicants, it must be ordered and produce its effects before decision is reached in the main action.

It follows that there is no urgency where granting the interim relief sought could not remedy the alleged nonmaterial damage any more than annulment of the contested decision at the conclusion of the main proceedings.

Thus, in the case of decisions relating to the reassignment of an official to a different post within the institution concerned and the reorganisation of the institution, the nonmaterial damage invoked, consisting of prejudice to the official's reputation and honour and uncertainty as to his professional future, does not meet the requirement of urgency.

(see paras 22-25)

See: C-393/96 P(R) Antonissen v Council and Commission [1997] ECR I-441. para. 27; C-65/99 P(R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I-1857, para. 62; T-82/95 R Gómez de Enterria v Parliament [1995] ECR-SC I-A-91 and II-297, para. 21; T-236/02 R Marcuccio v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-181 and II-941. para. 35; T-234/02 R Michael v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I-A-321 and II-1543, paras 31 and 32; T-320/02 R Esch-Leonhardt and Others v ECB [2002] ECR-SC I-A-325 and II-1555, paras 27 and 33
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Production before the Court of First Instance of opinions of the legal services of the Community institutions – Conditions

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Measure by the Bureau of the European Parliament amending the conditions for use of appropriations from a budget item by political groups and non-attached Members – Actions brought by non-attached Members – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. It would be contrary to public policy, which requires that the institutions be able to receive the advice of their legal service given in full independence, to allow such internal documents to be produced, in a dispute before the Court of First Instance, by persons other than the services at whose request they were prepared, unless their production has been authorised by the institution concerned or ordered by the Court.

(see para. 34)

2. It follows from the wording of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC itself that a natural or legal person is entitled to pursue the annulment of an act which does not constitute a decision addressed to that person only if that person is not only directly but also individually concerned by such act, so that the interpretation of that provision cannot have the effect of setting aside that last condition, expressly laid down in the Treaty, without going beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Treaty on the Community Courts.

(see para. 62)

3. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned by that measure only if it affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person to whom the measure is addressed.

In that regard, a measure adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament and amending the conditions for use of appropriations from a budget item by political groups and non-attached Members applies generally and in the future to both. It is therefore capable of affecting future political groups and non-attached Members as well as those of whom the Parliament was constituted at the time the measure was adopted, even though it does not concern any of them individually. Moreover, the status of non-attached Members is not a feature which distinguishes the applicants individually just as in the case of the person to whom the measure is addressed.

(see paras 63, 65-66)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Commission to refer a matter to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products for a reasoned opinion – Measures constituting a preliminary stage in a consultative procedure – Excluded

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 30)

Summary

Only measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant’s interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal position are acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, and particularly where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge, and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision. It would be otherwise only if the acts or decisions adopted in the course of the preparatory proceedings not only bore all the legal characteristics of measures against which action may be brought, but in addition were themselves the culmination of a special procedure distinct from that intended to permit the institution to take a decision on the substance of the case.

Therefore, the decision of the Commission to refer a matter to the Committee for Proprietary Medical Products under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83 setting out a Community code relating to medicinal products for human use in order to obtain a reasoned opinion, such as that on harmonising the summaries of a product’s characteristics, is not an actionable measure. Such a decision does not definitively determine the position of the institution, any more than it represents the culmination of a special procedure distinct from that intended to result in a decision on that harmonisation. The measure does no more than set in motion a consultative procedure, and merely represents a preliminary stage in that procedure.

(see paras 21-23, 26)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.