ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
61998B0081

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 December 1999. - Patricia Boyes v Commission of the European Communities. - Death of the applicant - Proceedings not continued by her successors - No need to adjudicate. - Case T-81/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-03501
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Meaning - Acts producing binding legal effects - Commission letter refusing a request for information on certain interest rates - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

2 Commission - Right of public access to Commission documents - Decision 94/90 - Distinction between documents and information - Whether the Commission is under an obligation to reply to any request for information from an individual - No such obligation

(Commission Decision 94/90)

Summary

1 Only measures which produce binding legal effects so as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC). That is not the position in the case of a letter from the Commission refusing a request for information on the rates of interest applied by the European Investment Bank to loans intended to finance projects for the economic development of French Polynesia, since the information sought appears in measures adopted by the Council and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. There is no provision of Community law requiring the Commission to reply to a request, emanating from a person established in the territory of a Member State or of the overseas countries and territories, for identification of the relevant passages of Community legislation.

2 It is necessary, for the purposes of applying Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents, to maintain a distinction between the concept of a document and that of information. None of the provisions in Decision 94/90 or in the code of conduct annexed to it deal with the right of access to information; the right concerned relates exclusively to documents. In the preamble to Decision 94/90 there is a lone recital which refers to the Declaration on the Right of Access to Information annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union. That reference, which is not the subject of any further explanation, cannot confer a new meaning on the term `document', which is used several times in Decision 94/90. It cannot therefore be inferred from Decision 94/90 that the public's right of access to a Commission document implies a duty on the part of the Commission to reply to any request for information from an individual.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

30 March 2000

Case T-33/99

Elvira Méndez Pinedo

v

European Central Bank

‛Notice inviting applications for posts in the legal services of the European Central Bank — Action for annulment and for compensation — Inadmissibility’

Full text in Spanish II-273

Application for:

annulment of the notice inviting applications for posts in the legal services of the European Central Bank published in Official Journal C 159 A of 26 May 1998, together with a claim for compensation.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The application for legal aid is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Dispute between the European Central Bank and an individual concerning a notice inviting applications — Provisions governing remedies — Conditions of employment of the European Central Bank — Publication — Absence — Application by analogy of the Staff Regulations (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) Officials — Actions — Dispute between the European Central Bank and an individual concerning a notice inviting applications — Seising of the Ombudsman before bringing an action — Submission of a complaint to the European Central Bank and lodging of an action before the Court of First Instance outside the periods prescribed for that purpose — Inadmissibility Acts of the institutions — General obligation to inform addressees of remedies and time-limits — Absence — European Ombudsman — Obligation to inform complainants of remedies — Absence (Statute of the European Ombudsman, Art. 2(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Applicant’s failure to proceed – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)

Summary

It is appropriate that the Court declare of its own motion, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate upon it if the parties and the intervener have not replied or raised any objection to a letter from the Court Registry giving them notice that, in view of the history of the case in question, the Court was minded, unless they formally objected, to make an order that there is no need to adjudicate.

(see paras 15-17)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 27 October 1999. - Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities. - Inadmissibility - Challengeable measure - Access to the documents of the institutions - Distinction between information and a document. - Case T-106/99.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-03273



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Meaning - Acts producing binding legal effects - Commission letter refusing a request for information on certain interest rates - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC))

2 Commission - Right of public access to Commission documents - Decision 94/90 - Distinction between documents and information - Whether the Commission is under an obligation to reply to any request for information from an individual - No such obligation

(Commission Decision 94/90)

Summary

1 Only measures which produce binding legal effects so as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC). That is not the position in the case of a letter from the Commission refusing a request for information on the rates of interest applied by the European Investment Bank to loans intended to finance projects for the economic development of French Polynesia, since the information sought appears in measures adopted by the Council and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. There is no provision of Community law requiring the Commission to reply to a request, emanating from a person established in the territory of a Member State or of the overseas countries and territories, for identification of the relevant passages of Community legislation.

2 It is necessary, for the purposes of applying Decision 94/90 on public access to Commission documents, to maintain a distinction between the concept of a document and that of information. None of the provisions in Decision 94/90 or in the code of conduct annexed to it deal with the right of access to information; the right concerned relates exclusively to documents. In the preamble to Decision 94/90 there is a lone recital which refers to the Declaration on the Right of Access to Information annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union. That reference, which is not the subject of any further explanation, cannot confer a new meaning on the term `document', which is used several times in Decision 94/90. It cannot therefore be inferred from Decision 94/90 that the public's right of access to a Commission document implies a duty on the part of the Commission to reply to any request for information from an individual.
Case T-210/99

Johan Henk Gankema

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Action for annulment – Applicant’s failure to proceed – No need to adjudicate)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 1 March 2004

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Applicant’s failure to proceed – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)

It is appropriate that the Court declare of its own motion, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that an action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate upon it if the parties and the intervener have not replied or raised any objection to a letter from the Court Registry giving them notice that, in view of the history of the case in question, the Court was minded, unless they formally objected, to make an order that there is no need to adjudicate.

(see paras 15-17)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing legal effects - Action for annulment of a decision confirming a decision not contested within the time-limit - Concept of confirmatory act - Identical decision adopted after re-examination of the situation - Inadmissibility

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Procedure - Costs - Costs unreasonably or vexatiously caused

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), second subpara.)

Summary

1. Only those measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the applicant's interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal situation constitute acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. Consequently, an action for annulment of a decision which merely confirms a decision not contested within the time-limit for bringing proceedings is inadmissible. A decision is merely confirmatory if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the situation of the addressee of the previous decision.

( see para. 8 )

2. The second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be applied, and a party, even if successful, be ordered to pay to the other party costs which it has caused that party to incur and which the Court considers unreasonable or vexatious. The costs relating to proceedings which are themselves unreasonable or vexatious must be regarded as such.

( see para. 14 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Council - Right of public access to Council documents - Refusal of access to a document - Actions for annulment - Time-limit - Time-barred

(Art. 230 EC; Council Decision 93/731, Art. 7(3))

Summary

$$An action for annulment, lodged out of time, against a Council decision refusing the applicant access to a document must be dismissed as inadmissible where, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision 93/731 on public access to Council documents, the General Secretariat's letter notifying him of that decision pointed out to him the content of Articles 195 and 230 EC which concern, respectively, the conditions for addressing complaints to the Ombudsman, and review by the Court of the legality of acts adopted by the Council. A normally diligent individual could have been left in no doubt either as to the finality of this decision, nor as to the time-limit for bringing proceedings laid down by Article 230 EC.

( see paras 23-24 )
Case T-354/00

Métropole Télévision SA (M6)

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision confirming a contested decision within the prescribed period — Inadmissibility’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 25 October 2001 II-3179

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment — Action contesting a decision which merely confirms a previous decision — Claims directed against both a confirmed decision and a confirmatory decision in the same action — Admissible in certain circumstances — Two separate actions challenging the confirmed decision and the confirmatory decision — Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

While it is true that the concept of a confirmatory act has been developed in case-law in particular in order to prevent the bringing of an action which would have the effect of causing expired limitation periods to begin to run again — and that, consequently, in situations where there has been no such circumvention of the timelimits for bringing an action, the Community judicature has on some occasions acknowledged the admissibility of claims directed against both a confirmed decision and a confirmatory decision in the same action — that solution cannot be applied where the confirmed decision and the confirmatory decision are contested in two separate actions and the applicant can defend his point of view and put his arguments in the first action.

(see paras 34-35)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision refusing to recognise as chargeable to the EAGGF aid unlawfully granted by the national authorities - Action by a recipient of the aid - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

$$An economic operator is not directly concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by a Commission decision, addressed to the Member States, excluding from Community financing, on the ground of failure to comply with the Community rules, various items of expenditure on the part of the national accredited paying agencies which were declared under the EAGGF, including those relating to the aid paid to that operator. That decision concerns only the financial relations between the EAGGF and the Member States, since no provision of that decision requires the national bodies concerned to recover the sums indicated from their recipients. The proper execution of the decision requires only that the Member State concerned refund to the EAGGF the sums corresponding to the expenditure excluded from Community financing.

In those circumstances, reimbursement of the Community aid paid to that operator for the financial years concerned would be the direct consequence, not of that decision, but of the action which would be taken for that purpose by the competent authorities on the basis of their national legislation in order to fulfil obligations under the Community rules on the subject. In that regard, it cannot be excluded that particular circumstances may lead the national authorities concerned to decide not to claim repayment of the aid granted from the recipient and themselves to bear the burden of reimbursing to the EAGGF the sums which they had wrongly considered themselves authorised to pay.

( see paras 45, 47-48 )
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility — Extent of its discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-22)

2. State aid — Concept — Measures intended to compensate for structural disadvantages borne by undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Adverse effect on competition — State measures seeking to approximate the conditions of competition, in a certain economic sector, with those prevailing in other Member States — Not permissible (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 29, 30)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Limits (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 32, 33, 37)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme in its general characteristics — Lawfulness — Low amount of aid and exercise of activities of undertakings beneficial at the local level — Aid capable of affecting intra-Community trade and causing a distortion of competition — Irrelevant (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 37, 42-44)

5. State aid — Administrative procedure — Obligations of the Commission — Diligent and impartial examination of the complaints — Assessment of legality of the Commission’s decision by reference to information available at the time it was adopted (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 38, 39)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for the development of particular areas — Exclusion of operating aid save in exceptional circumstances (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 48, 49)

7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 57, 58, 61, 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance.

2. The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. La Vigile San Marco SpA is ordered to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Admissibility of the main action - Irrelevant - Limits

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

2. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Preparatory acts - Not actionable

(Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 70/524)

Summary

1. In principle the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim relief, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. It may nevertheless be found necessary, when it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim relief relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

( see para. 51 )

2. Only measures producing binding legal effects of a nature such as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position constitute acts or decisions, which may be the subject of an application for annulment under Article 230 EC.

In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in particular where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, only measures definitively establishing the position of the institution on the conclusion of that procedure, and not provisional measures intended to pave the way for the final decision, may be the subject of an action for annulment.

The procedure for obtaining Community authorisation for an additive used in feedingstuffs, referred to in Article 4 of Directive 70/524 concerning additives in feedingstuffs, comprises several stages and the postponement until a subsequent meeting of the expression of an opinion on the safety of a product does not constitute a measure definitively establishing the Commission's position.

( see paras 61-62, 67 )
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Proceedings brought before the Court of First Instance on the basis of an arbitration clause - Action brought against the unilateral termination of a contract by the Commission - Application of the Commission for a decision not to proceed to judgment on the basis that the contract was not terminated - Interpretation by the Court of First Instance of correspondence addressed to the applicant by the Commission - Dismissal of the Commission's application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Action based on Article 33 CS - Action brought by an intra-State authority - Inadmissible

(Art. 33, first and second paras, CS)

2. Actions for annulment - Action based on the second paragraph of Article 33 CS - Conditions for admissibility - Conditions more restrictive than those of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Restriction offset by more flexible rules on intervention

(Art. 33, second para., CS; Art. 230, fourth para., EC; ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 34; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37)

Summary

1. The first paragraph of Article 33 CS cannot be the basis for declaring admissible an action for annulment brought by intra-State authorities against a Commission decision declaring aid granted to steel undertakings to be incompatible with the common market in coal and steel. It is apparent from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term Member State, within the meaning of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States and cannot include the governments of regions or autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have.

Moreover, since such intra-State authorities are neither undertakings nor associations of undertakings within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 33 CS, they cannot bring an action for annulment under that provision either.

( see paras 26-27, 29 )

2. The conditions for admissibility stated in the second paragraph of Article 33 CS are more restrictive than those in the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. That restrictiveness as regards admissibility is offset by the fact that the rules governing intervention in actions brought under the ECSC Treaty are more flexible than the rules under the EC Treaty.

Where a Member State brings before the Court of Justice an action for annulment against a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty, not only undertakings and associations of undertakings within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 33 CS, but any other natural or legal person, and therefore also the intra-State authorities of the Member States, may intervene in the proceedings under Article 34 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, if it can establish an interest in the outcome of the case. There is no such range of capacity to intervene in the course of an action for annulment brought by a Member State against a decision adopted under the EC Treaty. Under Article 37 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, natural and legal persons are not entitled to intervene in actions between Member States and the institutions.

( see paras 37-38 )