ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial loss - Limited duration of the contested measure

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

Summary

In the context of the examination of the urgency of a request for suspension of the operation of a measure, financial loss is in principle not considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant's being successful in the main proceedings, it could not be wholly recouped. That might be so in particular where the damage threatened the very existence of the undertaking in question or where, once having occurred, it could not be quantified.

Where the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in danger of suffering irreversible damage as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate compensation could be awarded were the contested regulation to be annulled by the Court in the main proceedings, even if that regulation is applicable only for a limited period. The circumstance that a regulation had already been implemented and its period of application had expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its interests, since the institution concerned would have to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to take adequate steps to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Mandatory - Point from which time starts to run - Notification - Purely formal errors irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

The two-month time-limit for bringing an action laid down by Article 173 of the Treaty is a matter of public policy which was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. The Court of First Instance may determine of its own motion whether it has been complied with.

In that context, an error in the description of the addressee of a decision which is the subject of an action for annulment is a purely formal error which cannot in any event prevent the application of the time-limits laid down by the Treaty, provided that the addressee of the contested decision was able to see that it was addressed to him.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 1997. - Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of the European Union. - Association of the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measure - Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency - None. - Case T-41/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00447



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial loss - Limited duration of the contested measure

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

Summary

In the context of the examination of the urgency of a request for suspension of the operation of a measure, financial loss is in principle not considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant's being successful in the main proceedings, it could not be wholly recouped. That might be so in particular where the damage threatened the very existence of the undertaking in question or where, once having occurred, it could not be quantified.

Where the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in danger of suffering irreversible damage as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate compensation could be awarded were the contested regulation to be annulled by the Court in the main proceedings, even if that regulation is applicable only for a limited period. The circumstance that a regulation had already been implemented and its period of application had expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its interests, since the institution concerned would have to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to take adequate steps to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

9 February 2000

Case T-111/97

Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objection of inadmissibility — Substantial new fact — Admissibility’

Full text in Spanish II-61

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decisions of 27 December 1996 rejecting the applicants' complaints dated 13 and 17 September 1996 whereby they sought reconsideration of their initial classification, with a view to being classified in Grade A 6 with effect from the date of their recruitment, and also of the Commission's decision of 1 March 1990 and 2 June 1992 in so far as they classified the applicants in Grade A 7.

Held:

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

Summary
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 February 1998. - Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European Communities. - Refusal to initiate infringement proceedings - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-182/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00271



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Refusal of the Commission to initiate the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Not included

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person in respect of a refusal on the part of the Commission to initiate the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations is inadmissible.

Such a refusal is not actionable both because under Article 169 of the Treaty the Commission is not bound to initiate such a procedure - it has, rather, a discretionary power precluding the right of individuals to require it to adopt a particular position or to bring an action for annulment against its refusal to take action - and because the only act which could be refused would be a reasoned opinion, which itself cannot form the subject-matter of proceedings for annulment.
61997B0156

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1997. - Achim Berge v Commission of the European Communities. - Transparency - Public access to Commission documents - Application for annulment - Removal from the register. - Case T-156/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02097
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Amicable settlement in connection with an application for interim relief - Binding nature - Correct implementation - Automatic removal from the register

Summary

Since an amicable settlement agreed by the parties before a judge hearing an application for interim measures is legally binding, it must be enforced by him.

Where, on expiry of the time-limit specified in the minutes of the hearing in proceedings on an application for interim measures, within which the parties are required to inform the court of the results of the implementation of an amicable settlement, the judge finds that although the settlement was correctly implemented the applicant does not honour the undertaking given to withdraw his application for interim measures in such a situation, the judge must of his own motion order that application to be removed from the register.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Measures of inquiry - Production of documents

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 65 and 66(1))
61998B0060

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 May 1998. - Ecord Consortium for Russian co-operation v Commission of the European Communities. - Interim measures - Application for interim measures - Commission decision rejecting a tender. - Case T-60/98 R.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02205
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Application which must be regarded as having no basis following a judgment of the Court of Justice - Release of a security furnished in the form of a bank guarantee for the benefit of the Community

(EC Treaty Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 and 243 EC))
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 29 April 1999. - Alce v Commission of the European Communities. - Inadmissibility. - Case T-120/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01395



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature - Action brought by a producer of lactic ferments - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Commission Regulation No 1160/98)

Summary

An action is inadmissible when brought by a producer of lactic ferments for annulment of Regulation No 1160/98, which classifies the products used in the production of those ferments under heading 0404 90 21 of the Combined Nomenclature.

That Regulation is a measure of general application, which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, in particular the importers of those products. Even though it is capable of affecting the applicant's situation, it would do so only by reason of the applicant's objective attribute as an economic operator importing products referred to in the Regulation, in the same way as any economic operator pursuing the same activity in the European Community.

In that connection it is irrelevant that the applicant is the leading Italian producer of lactic ferments. Such a circumstance is not sufficient to distinguish the applicant from all other operators with respect to the contested Regulation, which is intended to determine generally the customs tariff classification of the products in question by reason of their importation from non-member countries into all Member States without distinction.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 8 December 1998. - Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v Council of the European Union. - Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 - Provision abolishing national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year- Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-38/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-04191



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation abolishing adjustment aid for sugar beet producers - Action brought by producers and a producers' association - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2613/97, Art. 2)

Summary

The action brought by certain sugar beet producers for the annulment of Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97 - which abolishes all adjustment aid for such producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year - is inadmissible.

That provision introduces a measure of general application which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, namely the Member States and the sugar beet producers. Moreover, even though that measure is susceptible of affecting the applicants' situation, it would do so only by reason of their objective attribute as economic operators active in the sugar beet sector, in the same way as any economic operator engaged in the same business in the European Community.

In that connection, the fact that the measure's effects are likely to be felt more severely in the region where the applicants are active is irrelevant, since the possibility that such a measure may have different specific effects on the various persons to whom it applies is not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation and, in any event, the applicants are in the same situation as any other sugar producer operating in the same region.

The action brought by a national association defending beetgrowers' interests for annulment of the same provision is also inadmissible since that association is not distinguished by any of the criteria which are relevant in this regard. In the first place, the regulations on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector do not recognise that associations have any right of a procedural nature. Secondly, the growers whose interests are represented by the association in question are in a situation comparable to that of any other operator who may enter the same market. Thirdly, Regulation No 2613/97 neither concerns the members of the association individually nor affects the association's own interests; and the association did not play a role as negotiator in the procedure leading to the adoption of the regulation in question.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 1999. - André Van Meuter v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Effect of an application for legal aid - Inadmissibility. - Case T-109/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-03383

Page IA-00229

Page II-01167



Summary



Keywords

1 Officials - Actions - Time-limits - Mandatory - Conditions relating to time-limits may be examined by the Court of its own motion

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2 Procedure - Time-limits for bringing an action - Actions brought out of time - Application for legal aid - No effect on procedural time-limits

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 42, second para.)

Summary

1 The conditions governing the admissibility of an action, as laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, in particular those relating to the time-limit for bringing an action, are a matter of public policy and the Community judicature may, therefore, examine them of its own motion.

2 Since the strict application of Community rules on procedural time-limits serves the requirement of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, there can be no derogation from the application of those rules unless there is a quite exceptional case of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure as required by the second paragraph of Article 42 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

It cannot therefore be accepted that the making of an application for legal aid, in itself and independently of the circumstances of the case, has the effect of extending or suspending the period prescribed for bringing the action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Pecuniary damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185 (now Art. 242 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

$$The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the interests of the party applying for those measures. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind.

Damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action contesting a Commission decision refusing emergency aid not provided for under the Community rules - Action manifestly unfounded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, Art. 366; Council Decision 91//482)

Summary

$$An action must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded where it is brought by a farmer in French Polynesia against a Commission decision refusing him emergency aid which he had requested in order to repair cyclone damage to his plantation. Council Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community makes no provision for the Community to grant individuals emergency aid on request in the event of natural disasters. Nor does Article 366 of the Fourth Lomé Convention mention the payment of special emergency aid to individuals established in the territory of one of the ACP States.
The provisions relating to the Medical Committee and the Invalidity Committee are designed to confer upon medical experts the task of definitively appraising all medical questions. It follows that judicial review may not extend to medical appraisals as such made by the Invalidity Committee, which must be considered definitive, provided that the conditions in which they are made are not irregular, and that it may extend only to questions concerning the proper constitution and functioning of that committee and also the legality of the opinions which it issues.

In particular, it is for the Invalidity Committee to decide to what extent account should be taken of previous medical reports. The fact that the Invalidity Committee arrived at a conclusion different from that of one of the doctors who examined the official previously is not, of itself, sufficient to call in question the legality of the conclusions of that committee.

(see paras 24 and 26)

See: T-165/89 Plug v Commission [1992] ECR II-367, para. 75; T-43/89 RV Gill v Commission [1993] ECR II-303, para. 39
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Must be signed by a lawyer who is a third party independent of the applicant - Where the applicant company is represented by a lawyer who is also one of its directors - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, third and fourth paras, and Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 43(1), first subpara.)

Summary

$$For the purposes of bringing an action before the Court of First Instance, a `party' within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court - applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 of that Statute - must use the services of a third party who must be authorised to practise as a lawyer before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

A lawyer so authorised who is one of the two directors of the applicant company and therefore its `controlling organ' cannot be considered as a `third party' who is independent of the applicant and, accordingly, an application initiating the proceedings signed by that lawyer is inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1999. - Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment and damages - Action manifestly inadmissible and without any foundation in law. - Case T-71/99.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01727



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action contesting a Commission decision refusing emergency aid not provided for under the Community rules - Action manifestly unfounded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, Art. 366; Council Decision 91//482)

Summary

$$An action must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded where it is brought by a farmer in French Polynesia against a Commission decision refusing him emergency aid which he had requested in order to repair cyclone damage to his plantation. Council Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community makes no provision for the Community to grant individuals emergency aid on request in the event of natural disasters. Nor does Article 366 of the Fourth Lomé Convention mention the payment of special emergency aid to individuals established in the territory of one of the ACP States.
Case T-64/99 DEP

UK Coal plc

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Taxation of costs’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 19 September 2001 II-2549

Summary of the Order

Procedure — Costs — Taxation — Matters to be taken into consideration

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

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, the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

As regards the difficulties presented by the case and its significance from the point of view of Community law, where the substantive questions raised by an application have been, to a large extent, the subjectmatter of other cases in which the applicant brought proceedings before the Court at an earlier date, account must be taken of the fact that, consequently, the applicant's advisers already have some knowledge of the substance of the present case, which makes their research, analysis and drafting easier and significantly reduces the extent of the work which they objectively need to carry out in that regard.

(see paras 26-27, 30)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 9 August 1999. - Sociedade Agrícola dos Arinhos Ldª v Commission of the European Communities. - Procedure for interim measures - Urgency - None. - Case T-38/99 R.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02567



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Pecuniary damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185 (now Art. 242 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

$$The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the interests of the party applying for those measures. It is for that party to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage of that kind.

Damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation.