ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Powers conferred on the President by Article 84 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure

( EEC Treaty, Art . 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 84 ( 2 ) )
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2010 – Barber (Peinado Guitart)

(Case C‑262/88 INT)

Application for interpretation – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Application for interpretation of a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 92(1)) (see points 3-4)

Re:

Application for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 May 1990 in Case C‑262/88 Barber .

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable failures to act - Failure to bring an action to establish an infringement of the Treaty - Inadmissibility

( EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175, third paragraph )

Summary

An action for failure to act is inadmissible where it is brought by a natural or legal person and seeks a declaration that, by failing to bring an action against a Member State to establish an infringement of the Treaty, the Commission has failed to act, thereby infringing the Treaty .

The right of natural or legal persons to bring an action before the Court, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, is limited to applications seeking to establish a failure to adopt, contrary to the Treaty, acts which are potentially addressed to them . Within the context of the infringement procedure laid down by Article 169, the only measures which the Commission may be induced to take are addressed to the Member States .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial damage - Suitability of measures applied for

( EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Application for measures going beyond the scope of the main proceedings and requiring a prima facie assessment of matters not within their purview - Dismissal

(EEC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2))

Summary

An application for interim measures prohibiting a Member State from paying aid to one of the applicants' competitors and requiring the competitor to refund sums already received must be dismissed where the main application on which it is based seeks the annulment of a Commission decision finding that the aid was not subject to any requirement of prior notification and did not exceed the scope of the regional aid authorized by the Commission.

Such an application exceeds the scope of the main proceedings, which do not concern the compatibility of the aid with the Common Market for the purposes of Article 92 of the Treaty, and seeks to obtain measures which cannot be justified by the need to prevent the judgment in the main proceedings from being deprived of practical effect at the time when it is delivered. Furthermore it is premature inasmuch as, having regard to the content of the decision challenged in the main proceedings, the judge hearing the application for interim measures is not in a position to determine whether a prima facie case has been made out regarding the compatibility of the aid in question with the Common Market.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage to the applicant

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2) )

Summary

The urgency of an application for suspension or for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the suspension or interim measures. That party must prove that it cannot wait until the conclusion of the proceedings on the substance without suffering damage which would have serious and irreparable consequences for it.

It is not established that, in the absence of interim measures, an applicant who is disputing the legality of a decision by the Commission which authorizes the grant by a Member State of regional aids which will benefit one of its competitors may suffer serious and irreparable damage where the proceedings on the substance are expected to be concluded before the major part of the aid will, in view of the phasing of the payments, be made available to the beneficiary and before the alleged risk of disturbance of the market will arise.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

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

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation introducing a derogation from technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation No 345/92)

Summary

The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act adopting the measure in question. In order for the measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed.

A regulation which lays down a transitional measure for the benefit of fishermen who used a certain fishing technique before the prohibition of driftnets exceeding a given length applies to objectively determined situations and produces legal effects for classes of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner. It concerns those fishermen only in their objective capacity as fishermen using a certain fishing technique in the same way as any other economic operator in the same circumstances.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Application initiating the proceedings ° Formal requirements ° Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice EEC, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c))

Summary

In accordance with Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. The fact that an application does not specify the pleas in law relied upon in support of the applicant' s claims and, in particular, in the case of a claim for damages, the nature of the damage allegedly suffered, or the event giving rise to such damage, renders the claim for damages inadmissible.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Originating application - Procedural requirements - Statement of the forms of order sought - Implied claim for the annulment of an act of an institution - Admissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(d))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Appeals ° Intervention ° Retention before the Court of Justice of the capacity of intervener acquired during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility of a fresh application for leave to intervene

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 49)

Summary

It follows from Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC that interveners before the Court of First Instance must be treated as parties before that Court. Consequently, when the judgment of the Court of First Instance is the subject of an appeal, Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice applies to them and releases them from the obligation to submit a fresh application for leave to intervene before the Court of Justice under Articles 93 and 123 of the Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, an application for leave to intervene submitted in appeal proceedings by a party which intervened in the proceedings at first instance cannot be granted and must be declared inadmissible.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Appeal ° Suspension of operation ° Suspension of operation of a decision withdrawing Community financial aid ° Conditions for granting ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Lodging of security ° Security covering all the aid granted and exceeding the applicant' s own funds ° Account taken of financial resources which might be made available to the applicant by its shareholders and the group of undertakings to which it belongs ° Whether permissible ° Principle of effective judicial protection ° Principle of proportionality ° Breach ° None

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Article 107(2))
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Withdrawal by the national court of the questions referred to the Court - Removal from the register

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 77 and 78)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a ground of the judgment which was not necessary to support the operative part thereof — Plea ineffectual

2. Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Criteria — Gravity and duration of infringements — Consideration of the conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission — Excluded — ( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), second subpara. )

3. Competition — Fines — Amount — Conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission — Infringement committed intentionally or negligently — Alternative conditions — ( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), first subpara. )

Summary

1. In appeal proceedings, a plea in law directed against a ground given in a judgment of the Court of First Instance merely for the sake of completeness must, where the operative part is adequately based on other grounds, be rejected.

2. In determining the gravity of an infringement of the competition rules, the Court of First Instance is not required to verify whether it was committed intentionally or negligently, and still less to draw a distinction between the two cases.

It is apparent from its clear and precise terms that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 deals with two distinct matters. First, in the first subparagraph, it lays down the conditions which must be fulfilled to enable the Commission to impose fines, one of which is that the infringement must have been committed intentionally or negligently from the outset (initial conditions). Secondly, in the second subparagraph, it governs determination of the amount of the fine, which depends on the gravity and duration of the infringement, and it does not require (or indeed allow) any reference to the conditions in the first subparagraph. The gravity of infringements must be determined by reference to numerous factors such as, in particular, the particular circumstances of the case and its context; however, no binding or exhaustive list of the criteria which must be applied has been drawn up.

3. The first subparagraph of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 draws no distinction based on whether the infringement was committed intentionally or negligently but gives those two conditions for the imposition of a fine as alternatives to each other.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility of questions ° Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context ° Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply

(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.

In this respect, the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC 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.

Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference merely refers to criminal breaches of national copyright legislation committed by a person running a private radio station and to the question, raised in that context, as to whether the monopoly held by a company having the exclusive right to manage such copyright and authorized to require payment of fees with protection backed by criminal penalties is compatible with Community law, and where it fails to give sufficient details of the factual context of the dispute, the national legislative context or the precise reasons which prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and to deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference relating to a question already settled by the Court - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical questions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Appellant's manifestly selective and incorrect understanding of the contested judgment - Appeal clearly unfounded - Appeal dismissed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119; Staff Regulations, Art. 85)

Summary

An appeal based on an alleged infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations must be declared clearly unfounded and dismissed where a straightforward comparison of the contested judgment with the appellant's account of it reveals that his understanding of that judgment is manifestly selective and incorrect.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Actions brought by Member States - Definition - Action brought before the Court of Justice by a regional authority of a federal State - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Referral to the Court of First Instance

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33; EC Treaty, Art. 173; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, para. 2; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, para. 2; Council Decisions 88/591, 93/350 and 94/149)

Summary

Since the entry into force of Decision 94/149, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is limited to actions brought by a Member State or a Community institution.

In this respect, it is apparent from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term `Member State', for the purposes of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot include the governments of regions or autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have. If the contrary were true, it would undermine the institutional balance provided for by the Treaties, which, inter alia, govern the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say, the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and the Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions. It is not possible for the European Communities to comprise a greater number of Member States than the number of States between which they were established.

Accordingly, the Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an action for annulment brought under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty and with reference to Article 173 of the EC Treaty by a legal person such as a regional federal authority, and must, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EC and ECSC Statutes, refer the action to the Court of First Instance.
Keywords



Keywords

Officials - Equal treatment - Special leave granted by certain institutions as a favour - No legal obligation - Not possible to rely on the principle of equal treatment as a basis for challenging the other institutions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 57)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous appraisal of the facts - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - 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))

3 State aid - Prohibition - Derogations - Aid granted to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest - Conditions - Commission's discretion

(EC Treaty, Arts 90(2) and 92)

Summary

4 According to Article 168a of the Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

5 Where an appeal merely repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that Court, it fails to satisfy the requirements under Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure and is therefore clearly inadmissible. In reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which, under Article 49 of the Statute, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

6 The grant of State aid may, under Article 90(2) of the Treaty, escape the prohibition laid down in Article 92 thereof provided that the sole purpose of the aid in question is to offset the additional costs incurred in performing the particular task assigned to an undertaking entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic interest and that the grant of the aid is necessary in order for that undertaking to be able to perform its public service obligations under conditions of economic equilibrium.

In the case of a tax advantage granted to an undertaking entrusted with public service tasks, but which also has activities in competitive sectors, the requirements laid down by Article 90(2) of the Treaty cannot have been disregarded where it has been concluded that the possibility of a cross-subsidy taking place is excluded to the extent to which the aid in question remains lower than the additional costs generated by the particular task referred to in that provision, that is to say, where the condition has been laid down that the tax advantage should not exceed the additional costs engendered by the public service.
Order of the Court of 1 October 1997. - Regione Toscana v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Referral to the Court of First Instance. - Case C-180/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-05245



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Division of powers between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action for annulment - Actions by Member States - Concept - Action brought before the Court of Justice by a regional authority of a Member State - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Referral to the Court of First Instance

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47(2); Council Decisions 88/591, 93/350 and 94/149)

Summary

Since the entry into force of Decision 94/149, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is limited to actions brought by a Member State or by a Community institution.

In that respect, it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term Member State, for the purposes of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot include the governments of regions or of autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have. If the contrary were true, it would undermine the institutional balance provided for by the Treaties, which determine, inter alia, the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and the Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions. It is not possible for the European Communities to comprise a greater number of Member States than the number of States between which they were established.

Accordingly, when an action for annulment is brought before it on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty by a regional authority, which must be considered to be a legal person for the purposes of that provision, the Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of it and must refer it to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Revision of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof – New fact – Meaning (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44) (see para 12)

2. Procedure – Rules on languages – Choice of the language of the case ‑ Obligation to respect choice in the case of an appeal or application for revision (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 29(3) and 100(3)) (see paras 13-15)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for revision of the judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 9 September 1999 in Case C-64/98 P by which that court dismissed the appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 1997 in Case T-152/95 – Rules of the Court governing languages.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for revision;

2. Orders Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. to bear its own costs.