ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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-175/96 P.



European Court reports 1996 Page I-06409



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 subpara.)

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 on his own 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

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Dismissal - Legal characterization of the facts - Legal assessment of the applicant's interest in obtaining suspension of operation of a decision - Admissibility

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51(1))

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of an act - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable harm - Applicant's interest in obtaining the suspension sought - Negative administrative decision

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 39, second para.)

Summary

3 Although, by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 51 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, the grounds of an appeal must be confined to points of law, to the exclusion of any findings on the facts of the case, this does not, however, prevent pleas being raised in support of an appeal which relate to the legal assessment of such facts and seek to establish that the Court of First Instance committed an error in law.

In that regard, an appeal against an order on an application for interim relief, in which it is claimed that the applicant's interest in obtaining suspension of operation of the decision at issue was inadequately examined, is not confined to contesting the findings of fact made by the judge hearing the application for interim relief but must be understood as seeking to establish that the contested order contains an error in law as regards the legal assessment of the facts in point.

4 The judge hearing an application for interim relief may order suspension of operation of an act, or order other interim measures, only if it is established, inter alia, that such an order is urgent inasmuch as, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant's interests, it must be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Interim measures which would not serve to prevent the serious and irreparable harm feared by the applicant cannot a fortiori be necessary for that purpose. If the applicant does not have any interest in obtaining the interim measures sought, those measures cannot, therefore, satisfy the criterion of urgency.

An application for suspension of operation cannot, in principle, be envisaged against a negative administrative decision, since the grant of suspension could not have the effect of changing the applicant's position.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions raised without sufficient information regarding the factual and legislative context - Questions raised in a context precluding 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 that 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 must also give the Governments of the Member States and interested parties the opportunity 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 submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

A request by a national court which fails to give sufficient details of the national legislative context of the questions which it has put to the Court and to state the precise reasons which prompted it to examine the compatibility with Community law of certain provisions of national law or the reasons why it considers an answer to those questions to be necessary for the resolution of the dispute before it is consequently manifestly inadmissible in so far as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 1997. - Association internationale des utilisateurs de fils de filaments artificiels et synthétiques et de soie naturelle (AIUFFASS) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty - Textiles - Manifest error of assessment - Excess capacity - Admissibility. - Case C-55/97 P.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-05383



Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - None save where the clear sense has been distorted

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

Summary

Under Article 168a of the EC Treaty and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement by the Court of First Instance of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.

Therefore, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. Moreover, provided that the evidence has been properly obtained and the general principles of law and the rules of procedure in relation to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced to it. That assessment does not, therefore, constitute (save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted) a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Application lodged out of time - Inadmissible

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

Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions - General obligation to inform addressees of the judicial remedies available and the time-limits for availing themselves thereof - No such obligation

(EC Treaty, Arts 189, 190, 191 and 192)

Summary

Articles 189, 190, 191 and 192 of the EC Treaty, which define precisely the nature of and rules applicable to the legal measures that may be adopted by the Community institutions, do not impose on those institutions any general obligation to inform the addressees of those measures of the judicial remedies available or of the time-limits for availing themselves thereof.

In the absence of express provisions of Community law, the Community administration and judicature cannot be placed under any such general obligation.
Order of the Court of 5 March 1999. - Guérin automobiles EURL v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - No indication of the time-limit or of the legal remedies available. - Case C-153/98 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01441



Summary



Keywords

Acts of the institutions - General obligation to inform addressees of the judicial remedies available and the time-limits for availing themselves thereof - No such obligation

(EC Treaty, Arts 189, 190, 191 and 192)

Summary

Articles 189, 190, 191 and 192 of the EC Treaty, which define precisely the nature of and rules applicable to the legal measures that may be adopted by the Community institutions, do not impose on those institutions any general obligation to inform the addressees of those measures of the judicial remedies available or of the time-limits for availing themselves thereof.

In the absence of express provisions of Community law, the Community administration and judicature cannot be placed under any such general obligation.
Order of the President of the Court of 26 November 1999. - Azienda nazionale autonoma delle strade (ANAS). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte dei Conti - Italy. - Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) - Definition of "court or tribunal of a Member State" - Directive 92/50/EC - Procedures for the award of public service contracts. - Case C-192/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-08583



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) - Meaning - To be determined on the basis of the body's constitution and role - Role of the Corte dei Conti (Italian Court of Auditors), in the context within which reference was made to the Court, consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action - Not a judicial function

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

Summary

$$The question whether a body may refer a question to the Court falls to be determined on the basis of criteria relating both to the constitution of that body and to its function. Thus, a national body may be classified as `a court or tribunal' within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty when it is performing judicial functions, but when exercising other functions - of an administrative nature, for example - it cannot be recognised as such.

It follows that in order to establish whether a national body, entrusted by law with different categories of function, is to be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, it is necessary to determine in what specific capacity it is acting within the particular legal context in which it seeks a ruling from the Court. For the purposes of that analysis, no relevance is to be attributed to the fact that, when otherwise configured, the body concerned falls to be classified as a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty (even the same entity whose status is in issue, when it is exercising powers other than those in the context of which the reference was made).

The Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors) is not performing a judicial function - and cannot therefore make a reference to the Court of Justice - when, in the context in which reference is made, it is exercising its powers of ex post facto review which is an administrative role consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action.
Keywords



Keywords

Social security for migrant workers - Legislation applicable - Determined on the basis of Community law - Worker self-employed in more than Member State and residing in one of them - Principle of application of the legislation of a single Member State - Breach of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality - None - Simplified procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(3); Council Regulation No 1408/71, Arts 13(1) and 14a(2))
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Appeals - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Notification - Date on which the judgment or order under appeal is received

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

Summary



Keywords

Appeals Pleas in law Incorrect assessment of the facts Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance Failure to identify the error of law made by the Court of First Instance Inadmissible

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

$$It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.

It also follows from those provisions that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the order which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested order, simply repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments already put forward before the Court of First Instance, including those which were based on facts expressly rejected by that Court. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

( see paras 32-33 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

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

2. Social security for migrant workers - Unemployment - Legislation making the grant of benefits subject to completion of periods of insurance or employment - Aggregation of periods of insurance or employment - Taking account of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of another Member State - Conditions - Periods of employment or insurance to be completed lastly in accordance with the legislation under which the benefits are claimed

(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 67(3))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance - Error of law relied on not identified - Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous appraisal of evidence duly produced - Inadmissibility - Rejection - Obligation on the part of the Court of First Instance to state reasons for its appraisal of the evidence - Scope

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, para. 1)

Summary

1. Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure require appeals to indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment, confines itself to reproducing the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

( see paras 18-19 )

2. It is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value to be attached to the evidence before it. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance cannot, subject to the obligation to observe general principles and the rules of procedure relating to the burden of proof and the adducing of evidence and not to distort the evidence, be required to give express reasons for its assessment of the value of each piece of evidence presented to it, in particular where it considers that that evidence is unimportant or irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute.

( see paras 36-37 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons - Workers - Equal treatment - Income tax - National legislation limiting, as regards natural persons who are simultaneously self-employed in the Member State concerned and employed in another Member State, the possibility of deducting losses - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC))

Summary

$$Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes legislation by a Member State under which a natural person residing and carrying on a self-employed business in that Member State may, for the purposes of personal taxation, deduct from his taxable profit for one year a loss incurred the previous year only on the condition that that loss was not capable of being set off against remuneration received from employment in another Member State during that same previous year, when the loss, although set off, cannot be deducted from taxable income in either of the Member States concerned, whereas it would be deductible if that person had been both self-employed and employed exclusively in the Member State in which he is resident. Such legislation establishes differentiated tax treatment as between taxpayers who exercise all their activities exclusively on national territory and those who are self-employed in that Member State and employed in another Member State.

( see paras 29, 40, operative part )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. State aid — Commission expressly declining to require recovery of aid which is incompatible with the common market — Assessment of the need none the less to require recovery in light of the absence of notification by the Member State concerned — Jurisdiction of the national courts — (Art. 88 EC)

2. State aid — New State aid scheme — Definition — Transitional rules maintaining the effects of a scheme which is itself new — Whether covered — (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC)

3. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Assessment as to whether a particular grant of aid is compatible with the common market — Excluded — (Arts 88 EC and 234 EC)

Summary

1. It is for the national court to decide whether new aid, regarded by the Commission as incompatible with the common market but the recovery of which it has expressly declined to require, should or should not be recovered in the absence of prior notification of that aid. In that connection, the national court will take account of the general principles of its internal law, including the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the circumstances of the case.

see paras 40-41

2. Transitional rules which maintain the effects of a new State aid scheme which has not been notified to the Commission and has been declared incompatible with Community law, in themselves constitute a new State aid scheme within the meaning of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC.

see para. 45, operative part 1

3. Assessment of the compatibility of State aid or of a State aid scheme with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Court. Consequently, a national court may not, in a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 234 EC, ask the Court for guidance on the compatibility with the common market of a given grant of State aid or a State aid scheme.

see para. 47, operative part 2
Case C-488/01 P





Jean-Claude Martinez

v

European Parliament





«(Appeal – Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament – Lack of political affinities – Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)»

Order of the Court (Full Court), 11 November 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance – Failure to identify the error of law relied on – Inadmissibility

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

2.. Parliament – Competences – Application and interpretation of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Parliament, Rule 180)

3.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the facts – Inadmissible – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of facts and evidence by the Court of First Instance – Excluded unless the sense of evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)

4.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Practitioners of dentistry — Coordination of national provisions — Directive 78/687 — National rule allowing doctors who have not completed the training required by the directive to practice as dental practitioners — Not permissible — Title under which these activities are carried out — Not relevant — (Council Directive 78/687, Art. 1(1))

Summary

Directive 78/687 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, properly construed, precludes a national rule containing a general authorisation for doctors who have not completed the training required by Article 1 of that directive to carry out the activities of a dental practitioner, irrespective of the title under which those activities are carried out.

see para. 38, operative part