ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 1998. - Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Interlocutory proceedings - Intervention - Confidentiality - Suspension of execution. - Case T-65/98 R.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02641



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of a decision in the field of competition - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Balance of interests - Effect of a discrepancy in the application of the competition rules as between the national courts and the Commission

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for suspension must be assessed in relation to the necessity to give an interim judgment in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being occasioned to the party seeking suspension. In that regard, it is sufficient that the damage, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

Where the Commission has adopted a decision in which an exclusivity requirement contained in distribution agreements is held to constitute an infringement of the competition rules in the Treaty, any changes to the distribution system as a result of the revocation of the exclusivity requirement entailed by immediate execution of that decision are serious and irreparable, where the products are of a predominantly seasonal nature, inasmuch as competitors will make every effort to sell their products through outlets which had previously been less readily accessible. In such a situation, if the decision in question were to be annulled, the financial losses would be extremely difficult to quantify for the purposes of making reparation, in the light of unpredictable variations in sales of such products and, moreover, there are serious grounds for believing that the market developments to which immediate execution of the decision is likely to give rise would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse subsequently if the application in the main action were to be upheld.

Account must also be taken, when examining the application for suspension, of the fact that the question whether the same exclusivity requirement is lawful under the competition rules in the Treaty has also been raised in the national courts and that there is, prima facie, a contradiction between the views of the Commission and those of the national courts in the application of those rules.

Where the requirement relating to a prima facie case is met, the balance of interests inclines in favour of suspending execution of the decision in question where its immediate execution would entail the danger not only of causing the applicant serious and irreparable damage but also of furthering a situation of legal uncertainty as a result of a contradiction between the views of the Commission and those of the national courts in their application of the Treaty provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability - Scope - Acts of Community institutions or acts of servants of the Community - Meaning - Whether instruments of primary Community law are covered - Not covered - Position where damage is attributable to the Single European Act

(EC Treaty, Arts 7a (now, after amendment, Art. 14 EC) and 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

2. Non-contractual liability - Breach by the Community institutions of a legal obligation to act - Demise of the profession of customs agent as a result of the Single European Act - Obligation of the institutions to act - None - Obligation of the Community to compensate members of the profession - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC))

Summary

1. As regards non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, the cause of damage suffered by customs agents resulting from the abolition of customs and tax frontiers between Member States is not attributable to the Council or the Commission. The direct and determining cause of that damage is neither the adoption of measures of secondary legislation nor the absence of adequate compensation and support measures, but Article 13 of the Single Act, which inserted in the EEC Treaty an Article 8a, which later became Article 7a (now, after amendment, Article 14 EC); this provides in particular that the internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers. The Single Act, which was adopted by the Member States, is not attributable to the above institutions and consequently cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community.

( see para. 17 )

2. Omissions by the Community institutions can give rise to liability on the part of the Community only when the institutions have infringed a legal obligation to act under a provision of Community law. In respect of the demise of the profession of customs agent, there is no such obligation under the Single Act itself or under any other provision of Community law, or under any general principle of law by virtue of which the Community would be obliged to compensate a person who has been subject to a measure expropriating his property or restricting his freedom to enjoy his right to property, since the Community cannot be obliged to make good damage caused by acts which cannot be imputed to it. It follows that the Community cannot be obliged to compensate members of that profession. However, the possibility cannot be excluded that an obligation to provide compensation might arise under the domestic law of the Member State on whose territory the intra-Community customs agent carried out his activities.

( see para. 18 )
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 8 December 1998. - Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI Spa, Sadam Castiglionese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise Spa and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA v Council of the European Union. - Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 - Provision abolishing national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-39/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-04207



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation abolishing adjustment aid for sugar beet producers - Action brought by sugar beet processing and production establishments - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2613/97, Art. 2)

Summary

The action brought by certain sugar beet processing and production establishments for the annulment of Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97 - which abolishes all adjustment aid for sugar beet producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year - is inadmissible.

That provision introduces a measure of general application which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, namely the Member States and the sugar beet producers. Moreover, even though that measure is susceptible of affecting the applicants' situation, it would do so only by reason of their objective attribute as economic operators active in the sugar beet sector, in the same way as any economic operator engaged in the same business in the European Community.

In that connection, the fact that the measure's effects are likely to be felt more severely in the region where the applicants are active is irrelevant, since the possibility that such a measure may have different specific effects on the various persons to whom it applies is not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation and, in any event, the applicants are in the same situation as any other sugar producer operating in the same region.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

17 November 2000

Case T-200/99

Alberto Martinelli

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Absence of staff report — Action for damages — Admissibility — Implicit rejection of a request not disputed within the time-limits — Express confirmation of that rejection — Damage’

Full text in Italian II-1161

Application for:

compensation for the nonmaterial damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the absence of staff reports for the reference periods 1993-95 and 1995-97.

Held:

The action is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to publish a notice of the outcome of the procedure for the award of a public service contract - Information sought received before bringing the action - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, fourth para. (now Art. 232 EC, fourth para.); Council Directive 92/50)

Summary

$$The admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is conditional on that person proving that he has a legal interest in bringing proceedings.

Consequently, an action for annulment brought by a tenderer against the implied decisions refusing to inform him in writing of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of the award of a public service contract is inadmissible where the applicant has already, before bringing the action, obtained all the information which could be published in the Official Journal, and has therefore already achieved the result which he is pursuing, namely to obtain the necessary information allowing him to bring an action against the decision to award the contract in question and the concomitant rejection of his tender.

( see paras 36, 39 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. ECSC - Aid to the steel industry - Commission decision to open a formal examination procedure in relation to a State measure - Effects - Prohibition on implementation prior to a final decision by the Commission - Right of interested third parties to bring an action before national courts to obtain recovery of sums unlawfully paid

(General Decision No 2496/96, Art. 6(4), first subpara., and (5))

2. ECSC - Aid to the steel industry - Commission decision to open a formal examination procedure in relation to a State measure - Effects - Irrelevant to the lawfulness of the measure in question

(General Decision No 2496/96, Art. 6(5))

3. Actions for annulment - Action brought against a Commission decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in the Sixth Steel Aid Code in relation to a State measure - Adoption of a final decision declaring the measure in question to be incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of the aid - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 113 and 114(3); General Decision No 2496/96)

Summary

$$1. Where the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 6(5) of the Sixth Steel Aid Code is initiated, the prohibition on the implementation of aid measures planned by the Member States without the Commission's approval, provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of that code, continues until the Commission reaches a final decision on the compatibility of the planned aid with the common market and has direct effect so that any interested third parties may invoke it before a national court in order to obtain, in particular, recovery of financial support which has been granted notwithstanding the absence of approval.

( see para. 12 )

2. The decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 6(5) of the Sixth Steel Aid Code does not in itself produce any irreversible effects as regards the legality of the State measure it concerns. It is only the Commission decision closing that procedure which, since it definitively defines the measure in question as aid, has the effect of establishing that it is unlawful.

( see para. 14 )

3. The adoption by the Commission of the final decision declaring a State measure to be incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of the aid removes any grounds on which interested third parties could invoke before a national court the decision to initiate the formal examination procedure in order to obtain an order for the recovery of the financial support granted by way of implementation of the measure in question and renders devoid of purpose the action brought by the recipient undertaking against the decision to open the procedure and there is no further need to adjudicate on that action.

( see paras 13, 16-18 )
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 for medicinal products for human use which contain amfepramone (C(2000) 453) is suspended in relation to the applicants.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Conditions of admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Irrelevance - Limits - Inadmissibility

(Arts 242 and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

Summary

$$In principle the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings for interim relief so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim relief relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding that the main action is prima facie admissible.

( see para. 18 )
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

2 February 2001

Case T-97/00

Anastassia Vakalopoulou

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Member of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Extension — Action for annulment and damages — Decision adversely affecting an official — Manifestly inadmissible’

Full text in French II-91

Application for:

annulment of the alleged decision of the Commission not to extend the applicant's contract as a member of the temporary staff and a claim for compensation for the material damage allegedly caused to her.

Held:

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting official — Definition — Letter addressed to a member of the temporary staff reminding him of the date of expiry of his contract of employment — Inadmissible

Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the applicant's interests directly and immediately by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought.

An institution does not alter the legal position of a member of the temporary staff in any way when it informs him, in a letter, that his contract will end on the date normally envisaged. In the absence of a request from him, pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for an extension of his contract, followed by either a reply in the negative or no reply from the institution, only the contract of employment produces legal effects as far as he is concerned. He is therefore not properly entitled to submit a complaint and bring an action for annulment against a purely informative letter drawing attention to the date of expiry of the contract of employment.

(see paras 13-14)

See: 60/81 IBM v Commission [1981] ECR 2639, para. 9; 53/85 AKZO Chemie v Commission [1986] ECR 1965, para. 16; 329/85 Castagnoli v Commission [1987] ECR 3281, paras 10 to 12; 95/87 Contini v Commission [1988] ECR 2537, paras 8 to 10; T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio and Others v Commission [1993] ECR II-841, para. 39; T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECRSC I-A-247 and II-737, para. 23
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Intervention - Applications for interim measures - Parties having an interest - Main proceedings concerning the validity of a decision applying the competition rules - Complainant company

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37 second para., Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of an obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not immediately recovering a fine - Conditions for granting - Exceptional circumstances

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

Summary

1. Since interim proceedings are incidental to the main proceedings, a party which has already been given leave to intervene in support of a defendant institution in the main action for annulment of a decision adopted by that institution has, in principle, an interest in supporting the form of order sought by the latter in interim proceedings inasmuch as it asks the Court to uphold that decision.

( see para. 25 )

2. An application for interim measures which seeks to obtain authorisation to provide a guarantee for an amount lower than that required by the Commission as a condition for not recovering a fine immediately can be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Express provision is made in the Rules of Procedure of both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance for requiring a guarantee to be lodged, which is a general and reasonable policy pursued by the Commission.

Where Article 81(1) EC is infringed as a result of a decision of an association of undertakings, the ceiling of the fine, equivalent to 10% of the turnover in the preceding business year, must be calculated on the basis of the turnover of all the member undertakings of the association, at least where its internal rules permit it to hold its members liable.

Where a fine is imposed on an association of undertakings whose objective interests cannot prima facie be considered to be independent of those of its members undertakings, assessment of the likelihood of serious and irreparable damage which would arise from provision of the guarantee required by the Commission must be on the basis of the size and economic power of the member undertakings.

( see paras 52, 54, 58-59 )
Where a first application for suspension of the application of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 on relations between the Parliament and the Commission has been dismissed on the ground that the applicants have failed to put forward reasonable grounds for considering that the application in the main proceedings might be admissible, and no appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice under Article 50(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice against the order, it can no longer be challenged save in the situations provided for in Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Although the implementation of the Framework Agreement constitutes a new element as compared with the situation described in the first application for interim measures in that the contested decisions were taken after the order referred to above was issued, the application of the Framework Agreement cannot constitute a change in circumstances or a new fact within the meaning of Articles 108 and 109 of the Rules of Procedure, since it does not constitute an event capable of changing the conclusion reached by the judge hearing the application for interim relief, namely that the application in the main proceedings is, prima facie, inadmissible.

(see paras 46, 48-49)
An action for the annulment of a decision which is merely confirmative of a previous decision not contested within the time-limit is inadmissible, since that classification entails that the measure in question contains no new factors as compared with the previous decision and was not preceded by a reexamination of the circumstances of the person to whom that previous decision was addressed. Thus, as a rule, an action for annulment brought against a decision of the selection board, taken after a reexamination, confirming a previous decision refusing to admit the person concerned cannot be declared admissible unless that decision contains new factors as compared with the previous decision and unless it has, therefore, replaced the previous decision.

However, where a rule which is binding on the institution — such as a provision of a notice of competition — confers on candidates the right to request a review of decisions refusing to admit them, it is the decision taken after reexamination and not the original decision refusing to admit a candidate which must be regarded as the act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

To take the opposite view would be to negate the effectiveness or, at the very least, reduce the relevance of such a remedy which has been instituted by the administration for the benefit of persons wishing to take part in Community competitions. If the previous decision refusing admission were the only one to be regarded as an act adversely affecting him, the person wishing to request review of such a decision would be forced, in order to avoid any failure to observe the time-limit, to lodge, at the same time as his request, a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations or an appeal with the Court of First Instance, which would render the review procedure purposeless. Such a situation would also be contrary to the principle of procedural economy.

(see paras 24-27)

See: 191/82 Fediol v Commission [1983] ECR 2913, paragraph 31 ; T-2/90 Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II-103, paras 56 and 61; T-7/89 Hercules Chemicals v Commission [1991] ECR II-1711, para. 53; T-82/92 Cortes Jimenez and Others v Commission [1994] ECRSC I-A-69 and II-237, para. 14; T-331/94 IPK-München v Commission [1997] ECR II-1665, para. 24; T-100/96 Vicente-Nuñez v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-591 and II-1779, paras 37 et seq. and 67