ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of decision - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage

( ECSC Treaty, Art . 39; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83 ( 2 ) ).

2 . ECSC - Production - System of production and delivery quotas for steel - Commission' s obligations - Guarantee of a minimum production or of the maintenance of market share for a specific undertaking - None

( ECSC Treaty, Art . 58 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision authorizing a Member State to adopt protective measures - Trader' s previous expression of intention to effect imports and objection to the adoption of the decision - Inadmissibility

( EEC Treaty, Art . 115, first paragraph, and Article 173, second paragraph )

Summary

A Commission decision adopted pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 115 of the EEC Treaty and addressed to a Member State authorizing it in future not to apply Community treatment, subject to certain conditions and during a given period, to bananas originating in certain non-member countries and put into free circulation in the other Member States constitutes, in relation to banana importers as a whole, a generally applicable measure which applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects in relation to categories of persons described in general and abstract terms .

Accordingly, it is not of individual concern, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to an undertaking which imports bananas, even if it had, prior to the adoption of the decision in question, informed the Commission of its opposition to any measure of that type and had from time to time applied for import licences .

Circumstances of that kind are irrelevant since the decision has no retroactive effect and applies only to future applications for import licences .
Order of the President of the Court of 23 February 1990. - Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - EAGGF, Guarantee section - Clearance of accounts - No need to give a decision. - Case C-385/89 R.



European Court reports 1990 Page I-00561

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Summary

Parties

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Interim measures - Suspension of a measure - Application deprived of its purpose by defendant' s decision not to implement the measure at issue - Ruling unnecessary

( EEC Treaty, Art . 185 )

Summary

It is unnecessary to rule on an application for the suspension of a decision of the Commission on the clearance of the accounts presented by a Member State of expenditure financed by the Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, which the Member State challenges on the ground that the amount disallowed is not correct, if the application has been deprived of its purpose because the Commission has conceded that an error was made, has undertaken to rectify it and has in fact implemented the measure only on the basis of a recalculation of the relevant amount whereby the original error has been eliminated .

Parties

In Case C-385/89 R

Hellenic Republic, represented by Konstantinos Stavropoulos, Ilias Laios and Meletios Tsotsanis, legal assistants at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of the National Economy and the Ministry of Agriculture respectively, acting as Agents, assisted by Joannis Magoulas, legal assistant at the Ministry of Agriculture, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix,

applicant,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dierk Booss, Legal Adviser, Theofanis Christoforou and Maria Patakia, members of the Commission' s Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, likewise a member of the Commission' s Legal Department, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the suspension of Commission Decision 89/627/EEC of 15 November 1989 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1987 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( Official Journal L 359, p . 23 ),

the President of the Court of Justice

of the European Communities

( the grounds of the judgment are not reproduced )

makes the following order :

Operative part

( 1 ) It is not necessary to give a ruling .

( 2 ) Costs are reserved .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Actions for annulment of measures - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Notification - Concept

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173, 3rd paragraph )

2 . Actions for annulment of measures - Action brought against a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limits - Inadmissibility

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173 )

3 . Procedure - Time-limits for instituting proceedings - Community rules - Extension under rules of national law - Inadmissible

Summary

1 . A decision must be deemed to have been duly notified to an applicant, within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, when he has received a specific and unequivocal letter containing it together with a statement of its reasons .

2 . An action for the annulment of a decision purely confirmatory of an earlier decision not challenged within the time-limits is inadmissible .

3 . Time-limits for instituting proceedings before the Court are governed exclusively by Community law, so that an applicant may not rely on a ground of extension provided for in national law .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Action for annulment of measures - Measures against which actions may be brought - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Opinion sent by the Commission to the national bodies responsible for adopting the measures prescribed by a directive in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Action for damages - Action brought against the Commission arising from an opinion having no legal effect sent to the national authorities - Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 178 and Art. 215, second para.)

Summary

1. In order to ascertain whether measures challenged in an action for annulment are acts within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty it is necessary to look to their substance.

Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the applicant' s interests by clearly altering his legal position constitute acts or decisions open to challenge by an application for annulment.

That cannot be said of an opinion expressed by the Commission on the interpretation to be given to a directive concerning protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of organisms harmful to plants or plant products where the application of the Community provisions on the subject is a matter solely for the national bodies appointed for that purpose and no provision of the directive confers on the Commission power to adopt decisions on its interpretation, so that the Commission merely has the possibility, which is always open to it, of expressing its opinion which is not binding on the national authorities.

2. An action for damages under Articles 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty in which compensation is sought for the damage caused by the Commission' s wrongful adoption of a decision is inadmissible in the absence of such a decision, the Commission having been empowered only to issue a mere opinion addressed to the national authorities, not a measure producing legal effects.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Balancing of all the interests involved - Account to be taken of judgment declaring a Member State to have failed to fulfil obligations analogous to those in issue

(EEC Treaty, Art. 186)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for the annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Provision suspending the application to Gibraltar airport of the regulation on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation No 2408/92, Art. 1(3))

Summary

Article 1(3) of Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, which suspends the application of that regulation to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements agreed between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in respect of that airport come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.

Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the article in issue of the application of the regulation, which is itself general in scope, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate an air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, apart from the fact that it is not the only temporary derogation from the arrangements laid down by the regulation which applies to an airport, it merely reflects the existence of an obstacle of an objective nature to the immediate application of the regulation to Gibraltar airport, arising from differences between two Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Refusal of the Parliament to verify, following German unification, the credentials of the German representatives elected beforehand ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173; Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage)

Summary

Although the duration of the mandate of representatives in the European Parliament may be shortened under Article 12 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage by reason of circumstances giving rise to a vacancy, and particularly in the situation, mentioned in Article 6(3) of that Act, where there is incompatibility with the office of representative in the Parliament, no provision exists under which the Parliament may declare that the mandates of its Members are no longer valid by reason of an event, subsequent to and independent of the election, which causes no incompatibility, on the part of its Members, with the office of representative in the Parliament. Consequently, the Parliament was not in a position to act on the request that it verify, following the attainment of German unification in October 1990, the credentials of the German representatives in the Parliament who were elected in June 1989.

In those circumstances, a letter of the President of the Parliament informing an individual that his objections concerning the elections had to be rejected cannot be construed as an act giving rise to the right to bring an action for annulment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Jurisdiction of the Court ° Limits ° Question not objectively required for the main proceedings

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

In the procedure provided for in Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court of Justice manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer questions which do not involve an interpretation of Community law objectively required for the decision to be taken by the national court in the proceedings pending before it.

That is the case if a Juge-Commissaire winding up a company refers questions to the Court which concern rules and principles of Community law which he does not have to apply in the winding-up proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Provision suspending the application to Gibraltar airport of the regulation on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation No 95/93, Art. 1(3))

Summary

Article 1(3) of Regulation No 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports, which suspends the application of that regulation to Gibraltar airport until the cooperation arrangements agreed between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in respect of that airport come into operation, cannot be regarded as constituting a decision within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so that an action for its annulment brought by a natural or legal person is inadmissible.

Where an instrument contains limitations or derogations which are temporary or territorial in nature, they form an integral part of the provisions as a whole within which they are found and, in the absence of any misuse of powers, are of the same general nature as those provisions. The suspension by the article in issue of the application of the regulation, which is itself general in scope, affects equally all air carriers wishing to operate an air service between another Community airport and Gibraltar airport and, more generally, all those using the latter airport. Furthermore, it merely reflects the existence of an obstacle of an objective nature to the immediate application of the regulation to Gibraltar airport, arising from differences between two Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Preliminary rulings ° Jurisdiction of the Court ° Interpretation of Article B of the Treaty on European Union ° Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Treaty on European Union, Arts B and L)

2. Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility of reference ° Submission of a question without sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

1. By virtue of Article L of the Treaty on European Union, the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to interpret Article B of that Treaty in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling.

2. In view of the need to arrive at an interpretation of Community law which will be helpful to the national court, it is necessary for that court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual premisses on which those questions are based.

Furthermore, it is essential that the national court should give at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions of which it requests an interpretation and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute.

The information provided in decisions making references to satisfy those requirements serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.
Case C-120/94





Commission of the European Communities

v

Hellenic Republic





«(Removal from the Register) »

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 6 April 1995

Order of the President of the Court, 19 March 1996

Summary of the Order

1.. Procedure – Discontinuance by the applicant – Removal from the Register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 78)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Questions not relating to specific technical points, submitted without providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context — (EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

The information provided in orders for reference must not only enable the Court usefully to reply but also enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court. It is the Court ' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

The requirement for the national court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking is less pressing where the questions relate to specific technical points and enable the Court to give a useful reply even where the national court has not given an exhaustive description of the legal and factual situation.

None the less, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible where the order for reference does not contain any indication by the national court of the factual and legal situation in the case before it or of the reasons why it considers that the answers to the questions referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling are necessary in order to settle the dispute.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Definition – Matters to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b))

Summary

As Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court must, when called upon to tax expenses, consider all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

(see para. 17)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Appeal dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation specifying definitions, including that of "financial institutions", for the application of the prohibition referred to in Article 104a of the Treaty

(EC Treaty, Arts 104a, 173, fourth para., and 189; Council Regulation No 3604/93, Art. 4(2), last indent)

Summary

1. Under Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an appeal must give a precise indication of the aspects of the judgment under appeal which are complained of, together with the legal arguments put forward in support of the claim that it should be set aside.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for a re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice by virtue of Article 49 of the EC Statute.

2. An action brought by a public organization of a Member State administering compulsory welfare and assistance schemes for the annulment of Regulation No 3604/93, concerning the application of the prohibition of privileged access by public authorities to financial institutions referred to in Article 104a of the Treaty, the last indent of Article 4(2) of which defines "financial institutions", providing that institutions which are part of the general government sector are not financial institutions, is inadmissible.

That regulation is not a decision within the meaning of Article 189 of the Treaty because the definitions it gives, which are drafted in general and abstract terms and produce legal effects for the various undertakings and institutions only by reason of their belonging to categories determined in a general and abstract manner, have a general and legislative sphere of application and because, even if the persons to whom it applies were identifiable at the time it was adopted, its legislative nature would not thereby be called into question, since it envisages only objective legal or factual situations.
Case C-2/96





Criminal proceedings

against

Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea, Sezione di Strambino)

«(Interpretation of Articles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of the Treaty) »

Order of the Court, 20 March 1996

Summary of the Order
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Discontinuance justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5), first para.)
61996O0354

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Removal from the register. - Case C-354/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-06007
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 1996. - Orlando Lopes v Court of Justice of the European Communities. - Inadmissibility - Applicant not represented. - Case C-174/96 P.



European Court reports 1996 Page I-06401



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Originating application - Procedural requirements - Application not brought through a lawyer - Applicant's standing as a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court - Not relevant - Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, third para., and Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(1), first subparagraph)

Summary

Whatever his standing, a party within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is not authorized to act in person before the Court, but must use the services of a third person authorized to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Assessment by the Community judicature of the interest in intervening

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 34; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37; EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 38)

Summary

For the purposes of granting leave to intervene, the Community judicature ascertains whether those seeking it are directly affected by the contested act and whether their interest in the result of the case is established. Similarly, it is necessary to establish a direct, existing interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. The interest necessary in this respect must relate not merely to abstract legal arguments but to the actual form of order sought by a party to the main action.