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

14 May 2007

Case T-97/04

Laura Gnemmi and Eugénia Aguiar

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal in relation to the applicants and, alternatively, the applicants’ career development reports for that period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition of the admissibility of an action for annulment under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, requires that the impugned Community measure must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and leave no discretion to the addressees entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from Community rules 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 to implement that measure is automatic or a foregone conclusion, it 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, or does not require it to act in a definite way, it is the Member State’s action or inaction which directly concerns the person affected, and not the measure itself.

In that regard, Decision 2005/101 adopting, pursuant to Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, which designates areas of Finland as sites of Community importance, affects neither the rights or obligations of the land owners nor the exercise of those rights since it imposes no obligation whatsoever on economic operators or private persons and contains no provision as regards the system of protection of sites of Community importance, such as conservation measures or authorisation procedures.

Likewise, the obligations arising from Directive 92/43, and particularly from Articles 4 and 6 thereof, which bind the Member States once sites of Community importance have been designated by the contested decision, are not directly applicable to those operators since they necessitate a measure on the part of the Member State concerned, in order to specify how it intends to implement them.

(see paras 52-54, 59)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 30)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)

Summary

It is clear from the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, that two cumulative conditions must be satisfied in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions before the Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer and authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure to comply with them will result in the action being inadmissible.

Therefore, an application lodged by a party other than a Member State or one of the Community institutions is inadmissible if it is signed by a person who, even though he may be able to represent parties in actions before the courts of a Member State, is not admitted as a member of the Bar and, therefore, is not a lawyer within the terms of Article 19 of the Statute.

(see paras 11, 13, 16)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 7 and 26(3)) (see paras 24-27)

2. Community law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages (see para. 30)

3. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Matter of public policy – Time-barred – Excusable error – Definition (see paras 36-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/595/EC of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in connection with the sale and export of products from the Land of Mecklenburg‑Western Pomerania (OJ 2003 L 202, p. 15) to the extent that the decision classifies as unlawful State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC the financial assistance envisaged by the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for shared offices on the territory of countries which are official candidates for accession to the European Union.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Definition

–

Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 31-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 19 January 2005, by which the Commission replied to the letters from the Kingdom of Belgium regarding funds paid to various Belgian bodies under the European Social Fund.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community Courts (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 53)

2. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment and for failure to act (Arts 230 EC, 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 70-72)

3. Actions for damages – Commission taking a provisional position in the procedure for entering an active substance of a plant protection product in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 73, 77-81)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Meaning

–

Measures producing binding legal effects (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 19-22, 25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2004 concerning the recovery of State aid granted by the German authorities to Space Park Development GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant, SP Entertainment Development GmbH, to pay all the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2006 – Fermont v Commission

(Case T-307/05)

Preliminary issues – Objection of inadmissibility – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 19-20, 29)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see para. 26)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 – AEPI v Commission

(Case T-242/05)

Copyright and related rights – Proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations – Closure of procedure on a complaint submitted by an individual – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27, 29-30, 32)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 35)

3. Actions for annulment – Right of the Commission and of the Member States to bring judicial proceedings (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see para. 39)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20 April 2005 not to initiate proceedings against the Greek Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations and an application that a ruling be given on the substance.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2007 – V v Parliament

(Case T-345/05 R II)

Application for interim measures – Waiver of the immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Application for suspension of operation – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see paras 32-34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 39)

Re:

APPLICATION for re-examination of the applicant’s first application for interim measures, dismissed by order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 in Case T‑345/05 R V v Parliament , not published in the ECR.

Operative part:

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 September 2006 – Comunidad autónoma de Madrid and Mintra v Commission

(Case T-148/05)

Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure – Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 – European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 95) – Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 – Letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) – Action for annulment – Act against which proceedings can be brought – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 3605/93 and 2223/96) (see paras 37-63)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in a letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) of 3 February 2005 concerning the classification of Madrid, infraestructuras del transporte (Mintra) in the sector ‘public administrations’ within the European system of accounts 1995 (ESA 1995).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation

–

Interim relief

–

Conditions for granting

–

Serious and irreparable damage

–

Meaning (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32, 34-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28), and, second, the grant of any other necessary interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Action of a natural or legal person against another natural or legal person (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26-27, 30, 32, 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the action of Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles, then President of the European Parliament, in the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑305/05 was unlawful.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as clearly inadmissible;

2. Orders Mr Giuseppe Gargani to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Interest in bringing proceedings

–

Action by State aid beneficiary against the Commission decision declaring it compatible with the common market (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 89-105

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of the Commission’s decision of 6 September 2005 relating to State aid No N 363/2005 for the construction of a whey refining plant in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Germany) (OJ 2005 C 262, p. 5).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders wheyco GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision concerning protection measures against avian influenza affecting imports into the Community of birds from non-member countries (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2006/522) (see paras 28-34)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision concerning protection measures against avian influenza affecting imports into the Community of birds from non-member countries (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Decision 2006/522) (see para. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 71, 97, 118)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution – Minimum requirements (Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 72-73, 81, 86, 117)

3. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 95, 104-105, 108)

4. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration where knowledge of the fact causing the damage was obtained belatedly (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 96-102)

5. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Damage of a continuing nature – Date to be taken into consideration (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 106-107, 113-114)

6. Actions for damages – Reimbursement of costs incurred at national level – Sole jurisdiction of national court applying national law – Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 121)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the EIB’s negligence and failures in monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the project of 2K-Teint, in performance of the financing contract concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the Kingdom of Morocco.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders 2K-Teint SARL, Mohammed Kermoudi, Khalid Kermoudi, Laila Kermoudi, Mounia Kermoudi, Salma Kermoudi and Rabia Kermoudi to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB).
102

It addition, it should be borne in mind that under Article 233 EC, it is the institution whose act has been declared void which is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court. It follows that the court which declares the measure void has no jurisdiction to issue directions to the institution whose act has been declared void as to the manner in which it is to comply with the Court's judgment (order of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P Pevasa and Inpesca v Commission [1995] ECR I-3709, paragraph 24) and that the President of the Court of First Instance cannot pre-judge measures which might be adopted as a result of the annulment. The measures necessary in order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure depend not merely on the measure which has been annulled and the scope of the judgment, which is to be assessed on the basis of the grounds which led to it (judgments of the Court of justice in Joined Cases 97/86, 99/86, 193/86 and 215/86 Asteris and Others v Commission [1988] ECR 2181, paragraph 27, and Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) v Commission [2006] ECR I-4845, paragraph 44) but also on the circumstances of each case, such as the time frame in which the annulment of the contested measure takes place or the interests of third parties.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 91/414, Annex I; Council Decision 1999/468, Art. 5(6), second para.) (see paras 31, 44-45)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution not called upon to act (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 49-50)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision, alleged to be contained in a letter of 12 October 2006, not to submit a proposal with a view to inclusion of the active substance azinphos-methyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), or, in the alternative, application for a declaration that the Commission has failed to act in unlawfully failing to submit such a proposal.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV, Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl and Magan Italia Srl to pay their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the European Crop Protection Association to pay its own costs.
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 16 February 2007 – Hungary v Commission

(Case T-310/06 R)

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Agriculture – Common organisation of the market in cereals – Taking-over of maize by intervention agencies – Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 – Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-20)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-50)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 52)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 67)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (OJ 2006 L 290, p. 29).

Operative part

The Court:

Rejects the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2007 – Gargani v Parliament

(Case T-94/06)

Action under Article 230 EC – Defendant – Natural or legal person – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Action of a natural or legal person against another natural or legal person (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 26-27, 30, 32, 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the action of Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles, then President of the European Parliament, in the reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C‑305/05 was unlawful.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as clearly inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 4 September 2009 – Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

(Case T-174/06)

Non‑contractual liability – OLAF investigations concerning irregularities in export refunds on beef and veal exported to Jordan – Communication to the national authorities of information on the facts capable of giving rise to criminal proceedings – National decision to recover the refunds – Provision of Guarantees – Action for damages – Limitation period – Continuing nature of the harm – Partial inadmissibility – Causation

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run (Arts 230 EC, 232, second para., EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see paras 46-47, 55-57, 60-61)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 68-69)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 84-90)

Re:

ACTION for non-contractual damages seeking compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the communication to the Italian authorities of the findings of an investigation conducted by the European Anti‑Fraud Office (OLAF), implicating the applicants, to ascertain whether certain refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan were lawful.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.