ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EU law – Principles – Rights of the defence – Right to effective judicial protection – Restrictive measures directed against the Democratic Republic of the Congo – Freezing of funds of persons undermining the rule of law or contributing to the commission of acts that constitute serious human rights violations – Obligation to disclose individual and specific grounds for the decisions adopted – Obligation to enable the person concerned effectively to put forward his or her point of view regarding the reasons relied on against him or her – Scope

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a); Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940, Annex II; Council Regulation No 2018/1931, Annex)

(see paras 57-59, 62)
21

The referring court takes the view that EU law, and, in particular, Directive 2015/2436, do not preclude the burden of setting out the facts from being placed on the party that applies for revocation of a trade mark for non-use. That burden may be justified by a weighing up of the interests of the parties concerned. In proceedings for revocation of a trade mark for non-use, it is incumbent upon the applicant to verify, to the extent possible, whether the defendant has put its mark to genuine use. It is only after such an investigation has been conducted and its results set out that the defendant is to be required to reveal the use that it has made of its mark. Since no specific legal interest in bringing proceedings is required in order to apply for revocation of a trade mark for non-use, any person might require the proprietor to disclose the use that it makes of its mark, entailing a serious risk of proceedings being brought that constitute an abuse. The applicant could require the proprietor of the mark concerned to give up trade secrets and to make considerable efforts in the research necessary to demonstrate genuine use of its mark.
46

That conclusion is not affected by the fact that, according to Article 83 of Regulation No 1107/2009, references in other legislative texts, such as Regulation No 1782/2003, to Article 3 of Directive 91/414 must be understood as being made to Article 55 of Regulation No 1107/2009 and not to Article 28 of that latter regulation. Article 3(1) of Directive 91/414 required Member States to prescribe that plant protection products may not be placed on the market and used in their territory unless they have been authorised. That provision corresponds to Article 28(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009. Article 3(3) of Directive 91/414, for its part, required Member States to prescribe that plant protection products must be used properly, and corresponds to Article 55 of Regulation No 1107/2009. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the present judgment, compliance with the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph of Article 55 of Regulation No 1107/2009 presupposes that the plant protection product used has an authorisation in force, in accordance with Articles 28 and 32 of that regulation. Consequently, no express reference to Article 28 of Regulation No 1107/2009 was necessary in Article 83 of that regulation.
9

Article 78 of that code is worded as follows: ‘1. The customs authorities may, on their own initiative or at the request of the declarant, amend the declaration after release of the goods. 2. The customs authorities may, after releasing the goods and in order to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of the particulars contained in the declaration, inspect the commercial documents and data relating to the import or export operations in respect of the goods concerned or to subsequent commercial operations involving those goods. Such inspections may be carried out at the premises of the declarant, of any other person directly or indirectly involved in the said operations in a business capacity or of any other person in possession of the said document and data for business purposes. Those authorities may also examine the goods where it is still possible for them to be produced. 3. Where revision of the declaration or post-clearance examination indicates that the provisions governing the customs procedure concerned have been applied on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information, the customs authorities shall, in accordance with any provisions laid down, take the measures necessary to regularize the situation, taking account of the new information available to them.’
27

Nevertheless, as follows from paragraphs 17 to 19 of the present judgment, in so far as, in order to be exempted from its obligation to pay compensation, the air carrier whose flight was subject to long delays or was cancelled owing to extraordinary circumstances, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 15 of that regulation, is required to demonstrate that those circumstances could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, and that it adopted the measures appropriate to the situation to avoid the consequences thereof, it is for the referring court to assess, having regard to all of the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings and the evidence adduced by the air carrier concerned, whether the latter did indeed adopt such measures, inter alia, by deploying all the resources at its disposal to ensure a reasonable, satisfactory and timely re-routing of passengers affected by a long delay to or cancellation of a flight, in accordance, in particular, with the objective of guaranteeing a high level of protection for passengers, referred to in recital 1 of that regulation, provided that this does not amount to an intolerable sacrifice in the light of the capacities of the air carrier’s undertaking at the relevant time (see, to that effect, order of 30 March 2022, Orbest, C‑659/21, not published, EU:C:2022:254, paragraph 26).
9

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004 (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1), entitled ‘Details relating to Articles 12 and 13 of [Regulation No 883/2004]’, provides in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9: ‘6. For the purposes of the application of Article 13(2) of [Regulation No 883/2004], a person who “normally pursues an activity as a self-employed person in two or more Member States” shall refer, in particular, to a person who simultaneously or in alternation pursues one or more separate self-employed activities, irrespective of the nature of those activities, in two or more Member States. … 8. For the purposes of the application of Article 13(1) and (2) of [Regulation No 883/2004], a “substantial part of employed or self-employed activity” pursued in a Member State shall mean a quantitatively substantial part of all the activities of the employed or self-employed person pursued there, without this necessarily being the major part of those activities. To determine whether a substantial part of the activities is pursued in a Member State, the following indicative criteria shall be taken into account: (a) in the case of an employed activity, the working time and/or the remuneration; and (b) in the case of a self-employed activity, the turnover, working time, number of services rendered and/or income. In the framework of an overall assessment, a share of less than 25% in respect of the criteria mentioned above shall be an indicator that a substantial part of the activities is not being pursued in the relevant Member State. 9. For the purposes of the application of Article 13(2)(b) of [Regulation No 883/2004], the “centre of interest” of the activities of a self-employed person shall be determined by taking account of all the aspects of that person’s occupational activities, notably the place where the person’s fixed and permanent place of business is located, the habitual nature or the duration of the activities pursued, the number of services rendered, and the intention of the person concerned as revealed by all the circumstances.’
37

From that perspective, the fact that a debtor is responsible for a number of delays in making payment for successive deliveries of goods or provision of services under a single contract cannot have the effect of reducing, to a single fixed sum, the fixed minimum sum payable by way of compensation for the recovery costs in respect of each late payment. Such a reduction would, first of all, effectively deprive Article 6 of Directive 2011/7 of any practical effect, the objective of that directive being, as has been pointed out in the preceding paragraph, not only to discourage late payment but also for those sums to serve as compensation ‘for the creditor’s own recovery costs’, costs which tend to rise in proportion to the number of payments and amounts which the debtor fails to pay on time. That reduction would moreover be equivalent to granting the debtor a derogation from the entitlement to the fixed sum referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive, without that derogation being justified by any ‘objective reason’ within the meaning of point (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of that directive. Lastly, the reduction at issue would effectively exempt the debtor from part of the financial burden arising from the debtor’s obligation to pay, in respect of each payment not paid on time, the fixed sum of EUR 40 provided for in Article 6(1) (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 October 2022, BFF Finance Iberia, C‑585/20, EU:C:2022:806, paragraph 37).
Order of the President of the Court of 4 May 1964. - Ernest Ley v Commission of the EEC. - Case 12-64 R.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00175

Dutch edition Page 00176

German edition Page 00182

Italian edition Page 00169

English special edition Page 00132



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 12/64 R

ERNEST LEY, AN OFFICIAL OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY MARCEL SLUSNY, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, LECTURER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O MRS LEY-HEINEN, 27 AVENUE DE LA GARE,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, LOUIS DE LA FONTAINE, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR SUSPENSION OF RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST REFERRED TO IN VACANCY NOTICE NO 403 BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC,

Grounds

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY ARGUMENT CAPABLE OF PROVING THAT IF THE PROCEDURE IS NOT SUSPENDED IT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE HIM IRREPARABLE INJURY;

WHEREAS THE APPLICANT HAS ALLEGED THAT IF RECRUITMENT IS AFFECTED DURING HIS MAIN APPLICATION IT MIGHT PREJUDICE THE PERSON APPOINTED SHOULD THAT APPLICATION BE DECLARED TO BE WELL-FOUNDED;

WHEREAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE SUSPENSION OF OPERATION OF A CONTESTED MEASURE IS GRANTED TO AN APPLICANT IN ORDER TO PROTECT HIS OWN INTERESTS;

WHEREAS, HOWEVER, THE DEFENDANT INSTITUTION, IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO OPPOSE THE GRANT OF THE SUSPENSION REQUESTED, IS IN A POSITION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE HARM WHICH IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION MIGHT CAUSE TO THE INTERESTS OF THIRD PARTIES;

WHEREAS IN THIS CASE THE DEFENDANT HAS OPPOSED THE GRANT OF A SUSPENSION;

WHEREAS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR ORDERING THE SUSPENSION SOUGHT .

Decision on costs

WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR RESERVING THE DECISION ON COSTS UNTIL THE DECISION IN THE ORIGINAL CASE;

WHEREAS, SINCE HIS APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN INTERIM MEASURE IS DISMISSED, THE APPLICANT MUST BEAR HIS OWN COSTS,

Operative part

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

HEREBY ORDERS :

1 . THE REQUEST IS DISMISSED;

2 . THE PARTIES MUST BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 28 November 1966. - Max Gutmann v Commission of the EAEC. - Case 29-66 R.



European Court reports

French edition Page 00313

Dutch edition Page 00302

German edition Page 00326

Italian edition Page 00284

English special edition Page 00241



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 29/66R

MAX GUTMANN, AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ERNEST ARENDT, AVOCAT-AVOUE AT THE COUR D' APPEL, LUXEMBOURG, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN,

APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, MAURICE PRELLE, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE SECRETARIAT OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, 2 PLACE DE METZ,

DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY OF 18 JULY 1966 APPOINTING THE APPLICANT TO THE POST OF REVISER IN GRADE L/A5 IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION;

Grounds

P.242

WHEREAS FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN JOINED CASES 18 AND 35/65, THE DEFENDANT DECIDED ON 18 JULY 1966 TO REINSTATE THE APPLICANT IN HIS POST AT ISPRA IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD UP TO THAT DATE AND, AS FROM 19 JULY 1966, TO ALLOCATE HIM BY WAY OF TRANSFER TO ANOTHER POST ATTACHED TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OF THE COMMISSION AT BRUSSELS;

WHEREAS THE FACT THAT THESE TWO DIFFERENT DECISIONS WERE TAKEN AT THE SAME TIME IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT OBTAINED THE SPECIFIC RESULT WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED FROM THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE COURT ON 5 MAY 1966 ANNULLING THE DECISION TO TRANSFER HIM FROM ISPRA TO BRUSSELS;

WHEREAS THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPLICANT BY WAY OF TRANSFER TO A POST ATTACHED TO A DIFFERENT SERVICE FROM THAT TO WHICH HE WAS FORMERLY ALLOCATED GIVES RISE TO QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH MUST BE SETTLED BY THE JUDGMENT TO BE GIVEN IN THE MAIN ACTION;

WHEREAS IF THIS JUDGMENT WERE TO FIND THAT THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ALLOCATION IS CONTRARY TO THE STAFF REGULATIONS OF OFFICIALS, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SAFEGUARD RETROACTIVELY THE APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN ONLY PERFORMING DUTIES COMPATIBLE WITH HIS CAREER BRACKET AND, POSSIBLY, WITH HIS GRADE;

WHEREAS IT HAS NOT BEEN ALLEGED THAT THE FUNCTIONING OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE SERIOUSLY AFFECTED IF THE OPERATION OF THE CONTESTED DECISION WERE SUSPENDED;

Operative part

1 . THE OPERATION OF HEAD 2 OF THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 18 JULY 1966 CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF THE APPLICANT TO A POST OF REVISER IN THE LANGUAGE SERVICE OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDED UNTIL JUDGMENT BE GIVEN IN THE MAIN ACTION;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the Court of 23 October 1974. - Nederlandse Vereniging voor de Fruit- en Groentenimporthandel, Nederlandse Bond van Grossiers in Zuidvruchten en ander Geimporteerd Fruit v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 71-74 - Interv.



European Court reports 1974 Page 01095



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

++++

IN CASE 71/74

NEDERLANDSE VERENIGING VOOR DE FRUIT - EN GROENTENIMPORTHANDEL NEDERLANDSE BOND VAN GROSSIERS IN ZUIDVRUCHTEN EN ANDER GEIMPORTEERD FRUIT

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Subject of the case

BY APPLICATION LODGED ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1974, THE 'FRUITUNIE' ASSOCIATION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN ROTTERDAM, REQUESTED PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN CASE 71/74 .

Grounds

1 ARTICLE 93 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PROVIDES THAT AN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE MUST BE MADE BEFORE THE OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEDURE .

2 THE APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED .

3 AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 93 ( 3 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE APPLICATION WAS SERVED ON THE PARTIES TO THE ORIGINAL CASE .

4 BY STATEMENT LODGED ON 7 OCTOBER 1974, THE DEFENDANT DECLARED THAT IT HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE .

5 BY STATEMENT LODGED ON 4 OCTOBER 1974, THE APPLICANTS OPPOSED THE REQUEST TO INTERVENE MADE BY 'FRUITUNIE' ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE DO NOT SEEK TO SUPPORT THE SUBMISSIONS OF ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PARTIES, BUT SEEK TO SUPPORT THE DECISION IN ISSUE, AND THAT THE SAID REQUEST DOES NOT SATISFY THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT .

6/7 THE INTERVENER'S INTEREST IN THE CASE RESULTS FROM THE ADVANTAGES IT CAN GAIN FROM THE OPERATION OF A DECISION FREEING IT FROM THE AGREEMENT IN ISSUE .

8 THIS BEING SO, IT SUPPORTS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COMMISSION .

9 THE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE SHOULD THEREFORE BE ALLOWED .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS,

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : R . LECOURT, PRESIDENT, C . O DALAIGH ( RAPPORTEUR ) AND LORD MACKENZIE STUART, PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS, A . M . DONNER, R . MONACO, J . MERTENS DE WILMARS, P . PESCATORE, H . KUTSCHER AND M . SOERENSEN, JUDGES,

ADVOCATE-GENERAL : J . P . WARNER

REGISTRAR : A . VAN HOUTTE

ORDERS :

1 . THE INTERVENTION OF THE 'FRUITUNIE' ASSOCIATION IN CASE 71/74 IS ALLOWED;

2 . COPIES OF ALL PROCEDURAL DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE SERVED ON THE INTERVENER BY THE REGISTRAR;

3 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 5 April 1976. - United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 27-76 R.



European Court reports 1976 Page 00425



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

IN CASE 27/76 R

UNITED BRANDS COMPANY , A COMPANY REGISTERED IN NEW JERSEY , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

AND

UNITED BRANDS CONTINENTAAL BV , A NETHERLANDS COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 VAN VOLLENHOVENSTRAAT , 3002 ROTTERDAM , REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY IVO VAN BAEL AND JEAN-FRANCOIS BELLIS OF THE BRUSSELS BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR ELVINGER AND MR HOSS , 84 GRAND RUE ,

APPLICANTS ,

V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISERS , ANTONIO MARCHINI-CAMIA AND JOHN TEMPLE LANG , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , BATIMENT CFL , PLACE DE LA GARE ,

DEFENDANT ,

Grounds

FINDING THAT , AS REGARDS THE INTERIM MEASURES , THE PARTIES ARE NO LONGER OPPOSED IN LAW , THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERS THAT THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR ORDERING THE SAID MEASURES , WHILST TAKING NOTE OF THE DECLARATIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES CONCERNING IN PARTICULAR THE AMENDMENT OF THE CLAUSE CONCERNING THE RE-SALE OF BANANAS WHILE STILL GREEN .

IT IS THEREFORE POSSIBLE TO REACH A DECISION WITHOUT OPENING THE ORAL PROCEDURE , WHICH HAS BECOME UNNECESSARY .

IT IS UNNECESSARY , AT THIS STAGE , TO MAKE ANY ORDER AS TO COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE PRESIDENT

AS AN INTERIM MEASURE HEREBY :

ORDERS

1 . THE SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF ARTICLE 3 ( A ) AND THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 ( B ) OF THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF 17 DECEMBER 1975 ( IV/26 699 ) IS GRANTED UNTIL JUDGMENT IS GIVEN ON THE SUBSTANCE OF CASE 27/76 , IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT ALREADY OF THEIR OWN ACCORD BROUGHT TO AN END THE INFRINGEMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE COMMISSION IN ARTICLE 1 OF THE SAID DECISION ;

2 . THE COSTS ARE RESERVED .
Keywords



Keywords

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - POWERS OF JUDGE RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANTING INTERIM RELIEF - JURISDICTION TO SUSPEND OR DEROGATE FROM A GENERAL DECISION - LIMITS

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT - DIRECT LINK WITH THE DECISION AT ISSUE IN THE MAIN ACTION

( ECSC TREATY , ART . 39 ; RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 83 ( 2 ))
Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 1981. - Maria Grazia Carbognani and Marisa Coda Zabetta v Commission of the European Communities. - Joined cases 161 and 162/80 R II.



European Court reports 1981 Page 00145



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

IN CASES 161/80 R II

MARIA GRAZIA CARBOGNANI

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

AND

162/80 R II

MARISA CODA ZABETTA

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Grounds

BY LETTER LODGED AT THE REGISTRY ON 17 DECEMBER 1980 THE APPLICANTS INFORMED THE COURT THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GRANTED A SUSPENSION UNTIL 1 APRIL 1981 OF THE EXECUTION OF THE DECISION TO TRANSFER THEM , THEY WISH TO DISCONTINUE THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES LODGED ON 5 DECEMBER 1980 .

THIS SITUATION MUST BE DEALT WITH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SPECIAL RULES CONCERNING THE PROCEDURE FOR APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM MEASURES . ACCORDINGLY , THE APPLICANTS ' ABANDONMENT MUST BE ACCEPTED AND COSTS MUST BE RESERVED PENDING JUDGMENT ON THE MAIN APPLICATIONS , WHICH ARE STILL IN PROGRESS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE JUDGE ACTING AS PRESIDENT OF THE COURT , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 96 ( 1 ), THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 85 AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ,

HEREBY MAKES THE FOLLOWING INTERLOCUTORY

ORDER

1 . CASES 161/80 R II AND 162/80 R II ARE REMOVED FROM THE COURT REGISTER .

2.COSTS ARE RESERVED UNTIL JUDGMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN JOINED CASES 161/80 AND 162/80 .
Order of the President of the Court of 9 June 1980. - B v European Parliament. - Case 123/80 R.



European Court reports 1980 Page 01793



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF OPERATION - MAIN ACTION DECLARED INADMISSIBLE BY REASONED ORDER - INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES

( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ARTS 83 ( 2 ) AND 92 ( 1 ))

Parties

IN CASE 123/80 R

B ., AN OFFICIAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , RESIDING AT KEHLEN , REPRESENTED BY W . H . VERMEER , OF THE AMSTERDAM BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O DR P . STEIN , 2 AVENUE PESCATORE ,

APPLICANT ,

V

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT , KIRCHBERG , LUXEMBOURG ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM ORDER BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION OF THE ' ' EFFECTS ' ' OF A LETTER FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DATED 30 APRIL 1980 NOTIFYING THE APPLICANT OF A DRAFT DECISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE RULES ON THE INSURANCE OF OFFICIALS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AGAINST THE RISK OF ACCIDENT AND OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE ( STAFF COURIER OF 25 FEBRUARY 1977 ),

Grounds

1 UNDER ARTICLE 83 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AN APPLICATION TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF ANY MEASURE ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A MAIN ACTION BEFORE THE COURT IS ADMISSIBLE ONLY IN CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY AND IF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT ESTABLISH A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED .

2 THE MAIN ACTION BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT AT THE SAME TIME AS THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DISMISSED UNDER ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE . THEREFORE THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

3 BY ARTICLE 70 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , IN ACTIONS BROUGHT BY SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITIES , THE INSTITUTIONS SHALL BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS , WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 69 ( 3 ) OF THOSE RULES . BY THAT LATTER PROVISION THE COURT MAY ORDER A PARTY TO PAY COSTS TO THE OTHER PARTY WHICH THE COURT CONSIDERS THE FIRST PARTY TO HAVE UNREASONABLY OR VEXATIOUSLY CAUSED THE OTHER TO INCUR .

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE ACTION FOR ANNULMENT TO WHICH THIS APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES IS ANCILLARY WAS SIMPLY INTENDED TO DELAY MATTERS AND APPLIED THAT PROVISION IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS . FOR THE SAME REASONS IT MUST BE APPLIED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

AS AN INTERLOCUTORY DECISION ,

THE JUDGE ACTING AS PRESIDENT

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED .

2 . THE APPLICANT SHALL PAY THE COSTS .