ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Whether the measure sought has any link with the forms of order sought in the main proceedings - Provisional and non-definitive nature of measure sought

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

2. Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Applicability to actions for interim measures of the conditions required in order to bring an action for annulment - Provisional measures not capable of altering the applicant's situation or not confined to his particular situation - Inadmissibility

(Arts 230 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Procedure - Rights and obligations of agents, advisers and lawyers - Introduction by a lawyer of a series of applications which are manifestly inadmissible and/or unfounded concerning the same facts - Abuse of process - Conduct incompatible with the dignity of the Court of First Instance - Application of Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedures of the Court of First Instance, Art. 41(1))

Summary

1. The court hearing the application for interim measures has no power to order a provisional measure lacking any connection with the forms of order sought in the main proceedings. Moreover, the interim measures sought must be provisional and not definitive and may not, therefore, prejudge the outcome of the main proceedings.

( see paras 32-33 )

2. The rule that an individual has no standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC in order to obtain reparation which applies erga omnes but has, rather, only the right to bring proceedings if the act whose annulment is sought is such as to bring about a significant change in his legal situation, is applicable to applications for interim measures. Applications for provisional measures which are either not such as to bring about a significant change in the applicant's legal situation or are not confined to his particular situation are manifestly inadmissible.

( see para. 34 )

3. The conduct of a lawyer who persists in introducing, in relation to essentially the same facts, a series of applications both for interim measures and in the main proceedings which are manifestly inadmissible and/or unfounded, especially when those applications practically invariably contain baseless allegations of manifest unlawfulness directed at the contested decisions of the Community institution in question, of bad faith or failure to fulfil obligations on the part of that institution, clearly amounts to abuse of process.

Confronted with such abuse, the Court of First Instance may consider using the powers conferred on it by Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure against the lawyer whose conduct before the Court is incompatible with the latter's dignity or who uses the rights he derives from his office for purposes other than those for which those rights are accorded him.

( see paras 45-46 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure — Intervention — Conditions for admissibility — Interest in the result of the case — Indirect interest by reason of similarities between the contested decision which forms part of a bundle of individual decisions addressed to the prospective intervener — Inadmissibility — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, is applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance, the concept of an interest in the result of the case must be defined in the light of the precise subject-matter of the dispute and be understood as meaning a direct, existing interest in the ruling on the forms of order sought and not as an interest in relation to the pleas in law and arguments put forward. The expression ‘result’ is to be understood as meaning the operative part of the final judgment which the parties ask the Court to deliver.

Moreover, it is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by reason of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties.

Thus, in the case of a decision consisting of a bundle of individual decisions, it does not suffice to be one of the addressees of that decision, or to be directly and individually concerned by it to show a direct interest in the result of a case to which another addressee of that same decision or another person directly and individually concerned by that decision is a party, or, accordingly to be granted leave to intervene in that case.

Where a decision consisting of a bundle of individual decisions is partially annulled, Article 233 EC does not imply that the Commission must, at the request of those concerned, re-examine the legality of that decision in so far as it individually concerns other persons besides the applicant.

see paras 10-22
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 18-21)

2. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Aid of minor importance — Exclusion of the fishing sector from the benefit of the de minimis rule — No breach of the principle of equal treatment — Possibility of trade between Member States being affected (Art. 87(1) EC; Commission Notice 96/C 68/06) (see paras 28, 29)

3. State aid — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Scope of the burden of proof on the Commission — Power of the Commission to study the general characteristics of a programme without being required to examine each particular case of application (Arts 87(1) EC and 88 EC) (see paras 34-36)

4. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Scope — State aid for regional purposes — Included — Exclusion of operating aid for undertakings save in exceptional cases (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 40, 41)

5. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Duty of cooperation of the Member State seeking a derogation (Art. 87(3) EC) (see paras 45, 46)

6. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the act (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 48)

7. State aid — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Derogation granted by the Commission in an earlier decision in different circumstances — No infringement of the principle of equal treatment (Art. 87(1) EC) (see para. 52)

8. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Ten-year time limit under Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999 — Starting-point of the limitation period — Date of payment of the unlawful aid (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 15) (see para. 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. Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl and Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. are ordered to bear the Commission’s costs in addition to their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Whether the measure sought has any link with the forms of order sought in the main proceedings - Provisional and non-definitive nature of measure sought

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

2. Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Applicability to actions for interim measures of the conditions required in order to bring an action for annulment - Provisional measures not capable of altering the applicant's situation or not confined to his particular situation - Inadmissibility

(Arts 230 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Procedure - Rights and obligations of agents, advisers and lawyers - Introduction by a lawyer of a series of applications which are manifestly inadmissible and/or unfounded concerning the same facts - Abuse of process - Conduct incompatible with the dignity of the Court of First Instance - Application of Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 41(1))

Summary

1. The court hearing the application for interim measures has no power to order a provisional measure lacking any connection with the forms of order sought in the main proceedings. Moreover, the interim measures sought must be provisional and not definitive and may not, therefore, prejudge the outcome of the main proceedings.

( see paras 32-33 )

2. The rule that an individual has no standing to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC in order to obtain reparation which applies erga omnes but has, rather, only the right to bring proceedings if the act whose annulment is sought is such as to bring about a significant change in his legal situation, is applicable to applications for interim measures. Applications for provisional measures which are either not such as to bring about a significant change in the applicant's legal situation or are not confined to his particular situation are manifestly inadmissible.

( see para. 34 )

3. The conduct of a lawyer who persists in introducing, in relation to essentially the same facts, a series of applications both for interim measures and in the main proceedings which are manifestly inadmissible and/or unfounded, especially when those applications practically invariably contain baseless allegations of manifest unlawfulness directed at the contested decisions of the Community institution in question, of bad faith or failure to fulfil obligations on the part of that institution, clearly amounts to abuse of process.

Confronted with such abuse, the Court of First Instance may consider using the powers conferred on it by Article 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure against the lawyer whose conduct before the Court is incompatible with the latter's dignity or who uses the rights he derives from his office for purposes other than those for which those rights are accorded him.

( see paras 45-46 )
The urgent nature of an application for interim relief must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim decision in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking the interim measure. The onus is on that party to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that nature. To be able to determine whether the damage which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, the suspension of the operation of a decision, the judge hearing the application must have specific evidence allowing him to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail.

However, it is not necessary that the imminence of the alleged damage be established with absolute certainty. It is sufficient, particularly where the occurrence of any damage depends on a number of factors, that it can be foreseen with a sufficient degree of probability.

(see paras 32-33)
It is the responsibility of the party alleging that an action is out of time, having regard to the time-limits laid down in the Staff Regulations, in reliance on alleged oral communication of the contested decision, to prove that that oral communication enabled the applicant to take cognisance of the decision.

With regard to the condition that a prima facie case must be made by an application for suspension of operation of a decision reassigning to headquarters an official previously assigned to a Commission delegation in a nonmember State, there is manifestly no substance to the argument of the person concerned, based on the third paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, that the measure at issue infringes his right to further training and instruction. In the first place, it has not been proved that the obligation to facilitate such training, which is imposed on the Communities, actually establishes a right which may be exercised by an individual official. In the second place, the wording of that provision makes it clear that the obligation is subject, in particular, to the condition that ‘[such training and instruction should be] compatible with the proper functioning of the service’.

Similarly, the argument that the reservations expressed by the nonmember State in which the official performs diplomatic duties for the Commission would justify his transfer only if the latter, following an inquiry, found those reservations to be valid is not a serious one. The Court of Justice has clearly held that ‘internal relationship difficulties may justify the transfer of an official in the interests of the service ... irrespective of the question of responsibility for the incidents in question’. That case-law is applicable a fortiori where such difficulties concern an official performing his duties in a diplomatic context.

(see paras 41-42)

See: 124/78 List v Commission [1979] ECR 2499, para. 13; C-294/95 P Ojha v Commission [1996] ECR I-5863, paras 41 and 42
Actions for annulment — Action contesting a decision — Withdrawal of the contested decision while proceedings are pending before the Court — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

Procedure — Costs — No need to adjudicate — Action rendered devoid of purpose by withdrawal of the contested decision — Withdrawal entirely attributable to an error of the defendant institution — Defendant ordered to pay the costs

(Rules of Procedine of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))
Case T-41/01





Rafael Pérez Escolar

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Complaint – Action for failure to act – Locus standi – Admissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 25 June 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure to adopt a decision as to how to respond to a complaint seeking to have State aid declared incompatible with the common market – Admissibility of an action brought by a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC

(Arts 88(2) EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 232, third para., EC)

2.. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – Recognition as a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC – Condition – Existence of a legitimate interest

(Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC)

1.

2.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

14 August 2002

Case T-198/02 R

N

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure for interim relief — Suspension of operation — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post’

Full text in French II-763

Application for:

suspension of operation of the decision of 25 February 2002 by which the appointing authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from post without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension, provided for by Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

Held:

The application for interim relief is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from a Commission head of unit interpreting provisions of a regulation — Head of unit not acting on the basis of a legal provision giving him a decision-making power — Not covered — (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1101/89)

Summary

An action for annulment, brought by owners of a motor vessel who were asked to pay the special contribution required by Regulation No 1101/89 on structural improvements in inland waterway transport against a letter from the head of unit of the relevant Commission service providing them with an interpretation of that regulation in the light of the specific case submitted to him, is inadmissible.

The only measures or decisions which are capable of being the subject of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC are those which produce binding legal effects so as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. That was not the case with the letter in question, since the head of unit did not act on the basis of a legal provision which gave him a decision-making power, but merely gave them a non-binding opinion on the matter. The mere fact that a letter has been sent by a Community institution to its addressee in response to a request made by the latter is not sufficient for that letter to be characterised as a decision within the meaning of Article 230 EC.

see paras 23, 26-27
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by an association of undertakings which took part in the procedure for adopting the measure – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by operators particularly affected by the contested regulation – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. Annulment actions brought by an association of undertakings may, when that association has participated in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested measure, be regarded as admissible in at least three types of situation: when a legal provision expressly grants it a series of procedural powers; when the association itself is distinguished because of the impact on its interests as an association, in particular because its negotiating position has been affected by the measure whose annulment is sought; and when it represents the interests of members which would, themselves, be entitled to bring proceedings.

Damage to the position as negotiator of an association which took part in the procedure which led to the contested measure being adopted can affect its specific interests only where its position as negotiator is clearly circumscribed and intimately linked to the subject-matter of the contested provision. Therefore, the mere provision of information by the association to the Community institutions during the legislative process leading to the adoption of the contested measure is not sufficient to establish that the contested measure damages a clearly circumscribed position as negotiator of the association.

(see paras 44, 47, 49)

2. The fact that certain operators are economically more affected by a regulation than others is not sufficient for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. Nor are they individually concerned on the ground that they are obliged to end an autonomous economic activity which they carry out by virtue of authorisation issued by a national authority.

(see paras 53-54)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against a decision upholding an application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)

Summary

Withdrawal of an application for a declaration of invalidity filed against a Community trade mark that occurs before the decision of the Cancellation Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) declaring the Community trade mark invalid can take effect and become final, in accordance with the combined provisions of Article 56(6), 57(1) and 62(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, renders that decision inoperative, so that an action brought before the Court of First Instance challenging the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office which has confirmed the validity of the first decision becomes devoid of purpose in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and there is no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate.

see para. 14
Case T-287/02





Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – Decision to conclude a research contract – Time-limit – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 25 June 2003

Summary of the Order
Case T-202/02





Makedoniko Metro and Mikhaniki AE

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Public works contracts – Failure to institute infringement proceedings – Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC – Action for compensation – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 14 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Lawfulness – Fact that the Commission did not initiate infringement proceedings – Not unlawful – Claim for compensation – Inadmissible

(Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC)

2.. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Commission's right of action – Exercise of its discretion – Procedural position of parties who have submitted a complaint different from that in competition matters

(Art. 226 EC; Council Regulation No 17)

3.. Approximation of laws – Review procedures relating to the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665 – Procedure enabling the Commission to act where there has been a clear and manifest infringement of the Community rules on public procurement – Unrelated to the infringement procedure under Article 226 EC – Commission's choice not to make use of the procedure – Not unlawful

(Art. 226 EC; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3)

4.. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Unlimited jurisdiction – Issue of directions to an institution – Not permissible

(Art. 230 EC)

1.

2.

3.

4.
Case T-378/02 R





Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Proceedings for interim measures – State aid – Obligation to recover aid – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests – Exceptional circumstances – Provisional suspension)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 1 August 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative requirements – Balancing of all the interests involved

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

2.. State aid – Investigation by the Commission – Breach, when adopting a decision to open the formal review procedure, of the requirement to act within a reasonable time – Not sufficient to render the final decision unlawful

(Art. 88(2) EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1))

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Factors capable of being taken into consideration

(Arts 88(2) EC and 242 EC)

1.

2.

3.