ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Action for compensation for damage sustained in the context of the application of the milk quota system ° Withdrawal of proceedings following a statement made in court by the defendant, in the context of other proceedings, concerning its position should Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade be annulled ° Criteria for an order that costs be borne by the other party not satisfied ° Parties to bear own costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5); Council Regulation No 2187/93)

Summary

The statement of the institutions' position entered in the minutes of a hearing before the Court of First Instance concerning the consequences to be drawn from the possible annulment by the Community judicature of Regulation No 2187/93 providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade, namely that all those concerned, even if they were not parties to the action resulting in such annulment, would be entitled to claim compensation free of the restrictions provided for in Articles 8 and 14 of that regulation, is likely to have prompted the decision to withdraw by certain of the applicants who had brought an action for compensation for damage sustained in the context of the application of the milk quota system. That statement clarified for the applicants the Council' s position as to the consequences of acceptance of the offer of compensation contained in the contested regulation in the event that it should be annulled.

However, that statement is not of such a nature as to be capable of justifying, under Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an order that the applicants' costs should be borne by the defendant institution. Under those circumstances each party must bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Prima facie case ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Constitution of a guarantee

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 104(2) and 107(2))

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

It must be accepted that there is a risk of such damage if the immediate operation of a Commission decision ordering the repayment of Community aid would be likely to cause the debtor to be placed in judicial liquidation, given that its assets are less than the amount of which repayment is claimed.

In those circumstances, and providing the pleas put forward by the applicants in order to make out a prima facie case do not appear to be manifestly lacking all foundation, suspension of the decision' s operation would appear to be justified. Nevertheless, a balance must be struck between, on the one hand, the applicants' interest in not being placed in judicial liquidation and, on the other hand, the Community interest in the recovery of aid improperly paid and in the penalization of frauds in the system of Community subsidies. In a situation where one of the applicants has already been liquidated, the assets, share capital and reserves of the other applicants are practically non-existent and none of them has engaged in any activity during the past few years, the balancing of the interests in question requires, in order that the Community interest may be preserved, that the granting of suspension of the decision' s operation be made conditional, pursuant to Article 107(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, on the constitution by the applicants of a bank guarantee sufficient to ensure the repayment, if necessary, of all the aid they received.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Total or partial suspension of a decision conditionally authorizing a concentration between undertakings ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable harm ° Need to balance all the interests ° Interim measures justified by the risk of unnecessarily creating an irreversible situation

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

Summary

Where an application is made for the suspension of the operation of a Commission decision on concentrations of undertakings in so far as it requires the parties to the transaction to withdraw from a marketing company in which they are associated with other undertakings in the same sector, and that application is made by one of the latter, consideration of the lawfulness of the decision, inasmuch as it significantly affects the rights of third parties not involved in either the concentration or the proceedings before the Commission, raises such complex problems that the judge hearing the application for interim measures is not in a position to exclude a prima facie justification for the interim measures.

As regards the risk of serious and irreparable harm to the applicant, its existence cannot be denied if, in the first place, it appears from the information supplied to the court that the withdrawal required by the decision would entail in practice the dissolution of the company because the other shareholders have no real possibility of avoiding dissolution if the two shareholders involved in the concentration withdraw, and when, in the second place, the dissolution of a company undoubtedly constitutes serious and irreparable harm both to itself and to its shareholders. That is so, in particular, when the company affords those shareholders access to international markets where a significant proportion of their products are sold, so that the shareholders would find it difficult, if not impossible, to recover on those markets, were the decision to be annulled, the position they held prior to the dissolution of the company.

In view of that risk to the applicant' s interests, it must be considered when weighing up all the interests involved that the Commission' s interest in restoring effective competition on the market would not be compromised by a temporary suspension of the requirement at issue. Such suspension, moreover, is not capable of damaging the undertakings involved in the concentration, who are free either to withdraw from the company immediately or to await judgment in the main proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a decision in the field of competition ° Conditions for granting ° Prima facie case ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Adverse effect on market stability ° Balancing of all the interests involved

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for them. It is for the party seeking suspension of operation of a decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

Where market conditions as a whole are modified by a Commission decision in the field of competition, applicable within a relatively short period, the addressees of the decision suffer a risk of serious and irreparable damage, since the framework in which they operate will undergo major changes. If suspension of operation of the decision is not granted, such changes might lead to developments on the market that would subsequently be very difficult to reverse if the main action were successful. Conversely, suspension of operation of the decision is not such as to prevent its subsequently becoming fully effective should the main application be dismissed.

Where the requirement of demonstrating a prima facie case is also fulfilled, therefore, the balance of the interests involved requires that suspension be granted of the operation of a Commission decision whose immediate application pending the outcome of the main action entails a risk not merely of causing serious and irreparable damage to the applicants, and even their disappearance from the market, but also of compromising the stability of the market.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Right to bring proceedings ° Persons claiming the status of officials or of servants other than local staff

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 152)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Persons claiming the status of officials or of servants other than local staff ° Defendant ° Institution to which the applicant is attached ° Application citing as defendant the JET Joint Undertaking ° Inadmissible

(EAEC Treaty, Art. 152; Staff Regulations, Art. 1, para. 2)

Summary

1. Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty, which gives the Community judicature jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only to persons who have the status of officials or of servants other than local staff but also to persons claiming that status.

2. An action brought by a person claiming the status of a member of the temporary staff of the Communities must be brought against the institution to which the applicant is attached. Since the Joint European Torus (JET) Joint Undertaking is not one of the Community institutions listed in the EAEC Treaty, since it is not treated as a institution for the purposes of the application of the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, and since it does not possess such characteristics as would make it possible to consider, as has been done for the European Investment Bank, that the Treaty provisions under which the Community judicature has jurisdiction in proceedings between the Communities and their servants also cover disputes between it and its staff, an action brought against that joint undertaking or its Council by persons claiming the status of temporary staff of the Communities must be dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Matters to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91)

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Matters to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91)

Summary

1 The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in that regard.

Since there are no Community provisions laying down fee-scales, the Court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings and 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 interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

2 The significance that a case may have from the point of view of Community law because of the new and important questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify high fees and the fact that one of the parties was represented by a number of lawyers. Since the Court, when fixing the recoverable costs, takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of adjudication, there is no need to give a ruling on the costs incurred by the parties in relation to the taxation proceedings.
Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance (cinquème chambre) du 17 September 1998. - Eugénio Branco v Commission of the European Communities. - Taxation of costs. - Case T-271/94 (92).



European Court reports 1998 Page II-03761



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Definition - Circumstances to be taken into account - Travel and subsistence expenses of persons other than the lawyers of the parties - Economists' fees - Conditions of recovery

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court of First Instance must freely consider the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings and 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.

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by persons other than the lawyer of the applicant concerned are recoverable only if the presence of such persons was necessary for the purposes of the proceedings. The fees of an economist instructed by the applicant are to be considered necessary expenses only where the economist's involvement was necessary.

Since the Court takes account, in fixing the recoverable costs, of all the circumstances of the case up to the date when it makes its ruling, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the costs incurred by the parties in relation to proceedings for the taxation of costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 24 March 1997. - British Coal Corporation v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention - Confidentiality. - Case T-367/94.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00469



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Measures of inquiry - Request for production of a document - Dismissed - Document not relevant for the purposes of the dispute

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64(3)(d) and 65(b))

Summary

The interest in the result of a case required before a natural or legal person may intervene under Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 thereof, cannot be established by an indirect interest concerning a similarity of situations but must, on the contrary, be defined in regard to the actual subject-matter of the case, as circumscribed by the forms of order sought by the parties.

Consequently, where a complaint brought before the Commission is directed against a producer of coal, on the ground that the royalties which it has levied infringe Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty, and against a purchaser of coal, on the ground that, by applying discriminatory prices, it infringed Article 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, it cannot be argued that the legal persons who have succeeded to the rights of the purchaser of the coal have a direct and present interest in intervening in an application by the producer for annulment of the Commission's implied refusal to reject the complaint, since the practices thus complained of are not only distinct but also do not share the same legal framework.

In contrast, the person who made the complaint does have a direct and present interest in the result of the case and is therefore entitled to intervene, since the application seeks the annulment of a decision favourable to it.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

24 February 1995

Case T-40/95 R

Philippe Guebels

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Removal from post — Suspension of operation pending the final order on the application for interim measures’

Full text in French II-185

Application for:

suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision of 18 January 1995 to remove the applicant from his post as a disciplinary measure, pending the final decisions on the application for interim measures and in the main proceedings.

Decision:

Suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision pending the final order on the application for interim measures.

Abstract of the Order

An order suspending immediately the operation of a disciplinary measure pending the final decision on the application for interim measures may be made only if it can be justified, in the light of the interests at stake, by very particular circumstances (paragraph 4).

With regard to the effects which would ensue for the applicant from the immediate implementation of such a measure, the only information available for the present shows that immediate enforcement is likely to cause a considerable deterioration in the applicant's financial situation (paragraph 5).

Operation of the contested measure must therefore be suspended pending the final order on the application for interim measures (paragraph 6).

Having regard to the urgency of the situation and to the fact that the final order on the application for interim measures will be given very shortly, that decision is not such as to entail any serious adverse effect either on the Commission's financial interests or on its interest in ensuring the effective implementation of the disciplinary measure imposed (paragraph 7).

Operative part:

Operation of the Commission's decision is suspended pending the final order on the application for interim measures.
Case T-11/95

BP Chemicals Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Intervention — Rules on languages — Supporting documents in a language other than the language of the case — Request for a derogation from the requirement that they be translated’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 26 June 1996 II-601

Summary of the Order

Procedure — Rules on languages — Purpose — Written procedure — Obligation on the other parties to produce translations into the language of the case chosen by the applicant of documents annexed to their pleadings — Derogations — Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 35)

It is apparent from Article 35(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that, first, the applicant is entitled to choose the language of the case and, secondly, all documents annexed to the pleadings of the other parties, including the interveners, must, in principle, be translated into the language of the case. Those provisions are intended inter alia to protect the position of a party wishing to contest the legality of an administrative act adopted by the Community institutions, whatever the language used in that connection by the institution concerned, in particular during the pre-litigation procedure.

In the circumstances, even if different considerations may be held to apply as regards the oral procedure, the language of the case chosen by the applicant must be strictly observed during the written procedure before the Court. Only in exceptional circumstances may a derogation be granted under Article 35(2)(b) of the Rules of Procedure from the rule in the second subparagraph of Article 35(3), according to which any supporting documents expressed in another language must be accompanied by a translation into the language of the case.

An intervener may not benefit from such a derogation where it puts forward arguments supporting its request which do not establish that the absence of a derogation would prejudice its rights during the written procedure.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Application for the suspension of the procedure for the appointment of the Ombudsman

(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, Rule 159(7))
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action contesting a decision - Adoption in the course of the proceedings of decisions amounting to the annulment of the contested decision - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 1996. - Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v European Parliament. - Action for declaration of failure to act - Former officials - Social security - Admissibility. - Case T-164/95.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01593



Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure to act remedied prior to the initiation of proceedings - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

Where a defendant institution which has been requested to act defines its position in response to that request after the period of two months laid down by the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty has expired but prior to the initiation of proceedings, the conditions prescribed by that article for the admissibility of an action for failure to act are not fulfilled.

The fact that the position taken by the institution does not satisfy the applicant is immaterial in that regard, since Article 175 refers to failure to act in the sense of failure to take a decision or to define a position, not the adoption of a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the persons concerned.