ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

24 October 2000

Case T-27/00

Staff Committee of the European Central Bank and Others

v

European Central Bank (ECB)

‛Members of staff of the European Central Bank — Administrative circular — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility’

Full text in English II-987

Application for:

annulment, pursuant to Article 236 EC and Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, of Administrative Circular No 11/98 of 12 November 1998 concerning ECB internet usage policy

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Servants of the European Central Bank — Actions — Time-limits — Inadmissible

(Art. 236 EC; Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, Art 35; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42; European Central Bank Staff Rules, Art. 8.2.1)

Members of staff of the European Central Bank - Administrative circular -Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility (ORDER OF 24. 10. 2000 — CASE T-27/00 - STAFF COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND OTHERS v EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK) II-987
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission regulation on the application of Article 81(3) EC to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices - Action by distributor undertakings bound by vertical agreements and by associations representing the interests of those undertakings - Inadmissible

(Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249 EC; Commission Regulation No 2790/1999)

Summary

$$An action for annulment brought by certain small and medium-sized distributor undertakings bound by vertical agreements, and by two associations representing the interests of those undertakings, against Commission Regulation No 2790/1999, on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices, is inadmissible.

First, owing to its scope, the contested regulation is of a legislative nature and is not a decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC. The regulation states that, under certain conditions, Article 81(1) EC does not apply to vertical agreements. It defines its scope in abstract terms and is of general application to undertakings involved in vertical agreements and concerted practices.

Second, the applicants are not affected by the contested regulation because of attributes which are peculiar to them by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons enabling them to be considered to be individually concerned by a measure of general application. The exemption granted by the regulation in question, which prevents the application of Article 81(1) EC, and, consequently, of the penalty of invalidity established by Article 81(2) EC, concerns the applicants in their objective capacity as economic operators bound by vertical agreements, in the same way as all the other operators who are party to such agreements. The state of economic dependence on large suppliers is not a circumstance such as to differentiate the applicants from all the other economic operators since in Europe several tens of thousands of small and medium-sized undertakings are in the same position.

Moreover, an action brought by associations representing their members' interests must be held inadmissible if the action brought by the members themselves is inadmissible.

( see paras 17-18, 20, 22-23, 25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Interim measures - Conditions of granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions of granting - Urgency - Account taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant

(Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. Where, in proceedings for interim relief, the contested act falls within an area in which the Community institution enjoys broad discretion, not merely as regards the existence of the conditions justifying the adoption of the measure in question, but also as to whether a safeguard measure should be adopted or not, and most of the pleas put forward by the applicant relate to the manner in which the Commission has assessed the need for the safeguard measure and the detailed rules required, and, in view of the short-term validity of such an act, the effects of a decision by the judge hearing the application to suspend it would in practice be definitive, that judge may substitute his own assessment for that of the Commission only in exceptional circumstances where there is a prima facie case and clear urgency.

( see paras 46-48 )

2. Urgency in ordering an interim measure must result from the effects produced by the contested measure and not from a lack of diligence on the part of the party seeking the measure. That party must, if it is not to bear the loss itself, show reasonable diligence in limiting the extent of the loss.

( see para. 59 )
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

24 April 2001

Case T-172/00

Jean-Pierre Pierard

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Posting linked to membership of the Staff Committee — Applicant not immediately reassigned to his original post on the expiry of his term of office — Action partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded’

Full text in French II-429

Application for:

annulment of the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant's request that he be reassigned to his original service on the expiry of his term of office as a member of the Staff Committee and, second, for compensation for the nonmaterial damage allegedly suffered.

Held:

The action is dismissed. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing proceedings — None (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) Officials — Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Fault on the part of the administration — Damage — Causal link
Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and, second, to those which are necessary for that purpose. The costs relating to the procedure subsequent to the oral procedure in a case do not, therefore, constitute recoverable costs.

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. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

In the absence of 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, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work necessitated by the case on the part of the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. As regards the amount of work involved in the proceedings before the Court, the Court must take into account the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of those proceedings.

Since the Court takes account, in fixing the recoverable costs, of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of its decision, there is no need to give a separate ruling on the costs incurred by the parties in relation to the proceedings for the taxation of costs.

(see paras 25-26. 29. 33)

See: T-120/89 DEP Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter v Commission [1996] ECR II-1547, para. 27; T-115/94 DEP Opel Austria v Council [1998] ECR II-2739, para. 27; T-290/94 DEP Kaysersberg v Commission [1998] ECR II-4105. para. 20; T-64/99 DEP UK Coal v Commission [2001] ECR II-2547. para. 26; Groupe Origny v Commission, cited above, paras 33 and 44; T-182/00 DEP Pannella v Parliament, not published in the ECR. para. 29
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Bauer v Commission

(Case T-253/00)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision to join the application for a separate ruling on the objection of inadmissibility to the substance — Dismissal of an action on the substance without ruling on that objection — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-21)

2. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Measures designed to compensate for possible competitive disadvantages affecting undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included (Art. 87(1) and (3) EC) (see paras 28, 29)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme as a whole — Lawfulness (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see para. 34)

4. 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) (see paras 46, 47)

5. State aid — Commission decision — Duty of diligence of the Member State granting the aid and of its recipient as regards notification of all relevant matters (Art. 88(2) EC) (see para. 56)

6. State aid — Planned aid — Implementation before a final decision by the Commission — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 88(3) EC) (see para. 61)

7. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Obligation resulting from the unlawfulness — Purpose — Restoration of the prior situation — No breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment (Art. 88(2) EC) (see paras 62, 63)

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

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

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

3. Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 7 February 2001. - Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of the European Communities. - Measures of inquiry - Production of documents. - Case T-36/00.



European Court reports 2001 Page II-00607



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Parties

In Case T-36/00,

Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder, residing in Dundee (United Kingdom), represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor,

applicants,

v

Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and X. Levis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20 January 2000 refusing the applicants access to the minutes of the Advisory Committee on Value Added Tax,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),

composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges,

Registrar: H. Jung,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

Having regard to Articles 65(b), 66(1) and the third paragraph of Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;

whereas, by letter of 30 November 1998, the applicants, on the basis of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58), requested access from the Commission to certain minutes of the Advisory Committee on Value Added Tax (the VAT Committee);

whereas those minutes concern possible consultation of the VAT Committee by the United Kingdom prior to the enacting by that Member State, in 1994 and 1997, of legislation on the basis of the enabling power in the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1);

whereas, by letter of 20 January 2000, the Secretary General of the Commission informed the applicants of his decision to refuse them access to those minutes on the ground that their disclosure would undermine the protection of confidentiality as requested by the legal person that supplied the information and the protection of the institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings;

whereas, in the circumstances of the present case, it is necessary to supplement the inquiry in the present case and to obtain a full version of the minutes of the VAT Committee to which access has been refused by the Commission;

whereas, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 67(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the documents to be produced by the Commission shall not be communicated to the applicants;

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

hereby orders:

1. The Commission shall produce to the Court, within two weeks from the time service of this order is effected, the minutes of the Advisory Committee on Value Added Tax to which access was refused to the applicants.

2. This order shall be served on the parties.

3. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

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

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Standard of proof

(Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1. The question of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, 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 measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

( see para. 42 )

2. Although, in order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage within the framework of an application for interim measures, it is not necessary to require absolute proof that that damage will occur and it is enough for it to be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, the applicant is still required to prove the facts opening up the prospect of such serious and irreparable damage.

( see para. 67 )
Case T-141/01 R

Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Proceedings for interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cancellation of Community financial assistance’

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 22 October 2001 II-3125

Summary of the Order

Economic and social cohesion — Structural assistance — Community funding for national projects — Applicants for, and beneficiaries of, E AGG F financial aid required to provide information and to cooperate in good faith

Those requesting and receiving Community financial assistance are, in particular, required to ensure that they give the Commission reliable information that is not likely to mislead it, failing which the system of checks and evidence set up to verify whether the conditions attaching to the grant of the assistance are satisfied cannot function correctly. Without reliable information projects that do not fulfil the requisite conditions would be able to receive financial assistance. It follows that the duty of information and of sincere cooperation which falls on those requesting or receiving assistance is inherent in the system of assistance under the EAGGF and is essential to its proper functioning.

(see para. 42)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Acts affecting the applicant ' s legal situation — (Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need to show a vested and present interest — Assessment at the time the action is brought — (Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. A natural or legal person may challenge, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, only measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, that person by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

see para. 46

2. A claim for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is not admissible unless the applicant has an interest in seeing the contested measure annulled.

The latter must produce evidence of his interest in bringing proceedings, which is an essential and fundamental prerequisite for any legal proceedings.

That interest must be vested and present and is evaluated at the date on which the action is brought.If the interest which an applicant claims concerns a future legal situation, he must demonstrate that the prejudice to that situation is already certain. Therefore, he cannot rely upon future and uncertain situations to justify his interest in applying for annulment of the contested act.

see paras 47, 58
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Matters to be taken into consideration

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

2. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Conduct which gave rise to the costs not to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(1) and (3), second para.)

Summary

1. Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. In the absence of 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, 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 proceedings for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

(see paras 27-28)

2. Although the abusive nature of one party’s conduct is relevant for the allocation of costs ordered by the Court in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings, pursuant to Article 87(1) and (3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that abuse is, however, of no relevance at the stage of the taxation of costs, effected by the Court pursuant to Article 92(1) of those rules, since taxation is an objective procedure, the aim of which is to determine the necessary costs incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, irrespective of whether the conduct which gave rise to those costs is abusive or not.

(see para. 36)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

11 February 2003

Case T-83/02

Jan Pflugradt

v

European Central Bank

‛Staff of the European Central Bank — Formal warning — Measure having an adverse effect — Pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility’

Full text in German II-281

Application for:

the annulment of the letter of 28 February 2002 by which the European Central Bank informed the applicant that a formal-warning procedure was being instituted against him.

Held:

The application is inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Preparatory act — Imposition of a period of performance-monitoring for an employee of the European Central Bank prior to the possible submission of a proposal for dismissal — Excluded — Inadmissibility

(Art. 236 EC; Staff Rules of the European Central Bank, Art. 8.2; Conditions of Employment for Staff of the European Central Bank, Art. 42)

Only acts or measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect, directly and immediately, the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position can be regarded as acts adversely affecting him. 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 a measure definitively establishing the position of the institution at the conclusion of that procedure is challengeable, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision.

A communication by which the European Central Bank informs one of its employees that he is to be monitored for a period of six months and that, failing an appropriate improvement in his performance during that period, a proposal for dismissal will be submitted to the Executive Board, is a purely preparatory act and does not bring about a distinct change in the legal position of the person to whom it is addressed. Acts preparatory to a decision do not adversely affect officials and an applicant may rely on defects in acts prior to the decision and closely linked to it only in the context of an action challenging the decision adopted at the end of the procedure.

(see paras 33-36)

See: 11/64 Weighardt v EAEC Commission [1965] ECR 285: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission [1969] ECR 505. paras 4 to 7; 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389. para. 6; 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303. para. 23: T-50/92 Fioroni v Parliament [1993] ECR II-555: T-586/93 Kotzonis v ESC [1995] ECR II-665. para. 28