ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF A MEASURE - CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING

( EEC TREATY, ART . 185; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(2 )*)

2 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION - NOT RELEVANT - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY, ARTS 185 AND 186; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(1 )*)

Summary

1 . AS A CONDITION FOR THE GRANT OF AN INTERIM MEASURE SUSPENDING THE OPERATION OF A DECISION, ARTICLE 83*(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE REQUIRES THAT AN APPLICATION FOR SUCH A MEASURE MUST STATE THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE INTERIM MEASURE APPLIED FOR AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO URGENCY . THE URGENCY REQUIRED IN REGARD TO AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEED TO ADOPT SUCH MEASURES IN ORDER TO AVOID SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO THE PARTY REQUESTING THOSE MEASURES .

2 . THE ISSUE OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SHOULD NOT, IN PRINCIPLE, BE EXAMINED IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO AN APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES BUT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THE MAIN APPLICATION SO AS NOT TO PREJUDGE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE; HOWEVER, WHERE AN OBJECTION IS RAISED THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION TO WHICH THE APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES IS AN ADJUNCT IS MANIFESTLY INADMISSIBLE, IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN FACTORS WHICH SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MAIN APPLICATION IS PRIMA FACIE ADMISSIBLE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

PROCEDURE - TIME-LIMIT FOR INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS - BARRING OF PROCEEDINGS

Summary

THE STRICT APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY RULES REGARDING TIME-LIMITS FOR INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS CORRESPONDS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AND THE NEED TO AVOID ANY DISCRIMINATION OR ARBITRARY TREATMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE . DEROGATION IS POSSIBLE ONLY IN THE EVENT OF UNFORSEEABLE CIRCUMSTANCES OR FORCE MAJEURE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Damage of a financial nature

( EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83 ( 2 ) )

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures, as referred to in Article 83 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure . Damage of a financial nature is not in principle considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant' s being successful in the main action, it could not be wholly recouped .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . Application for interim measures - Suspension of the operation of a decision - Conditions - Prima facie case

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 83 ( 2 ) )

2 . Officials - Recruitment - Competition - Competition based on qualifications - University qualifications required - Appraisal in the discretion of the Selection Board

( Staff Regulations, Annex III )
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions - Serious and irreparable damage suffered by the applicant

( EEC Treaty, Art . 185; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )

According to settled case-law, the urgency of an application for the suspension of operation of a measure is to be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting provisional suspension in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage being suffered by the party seeking it and it is for that party to produce evidence that he cannot wait until the end of the main proceedings without personally suffering damage which would have serious and irreparable consequences for him .

Those conditions are not fulfilled in a case in which a Member State which is seeking the suspension of operation of a Commission decision adopted on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 93(2 ) of the Treaty requiring it to recover aid from the undertakings which received it . Even if it is supposed that the initiation of a recovery procedure could endanger the existence of the said undertakings, the damage caused would be to the undertakings themselves and not to the applicant Member State and, secondly, if the Member State wished to raise the issue of damage to its national economy in general, it would have to show, which it has not done, how the disappearance of undertakings representing together 2.5% of national production in their sector could give rise to such damage .

Furthermore, even if the undertakings were relying on a risk of damage specific to themselves, they would have to show that that risk resulted from the recovery measures actually taken by the State authorities pursuant to the Commission decision and that the remedies available under national law against such measures did not enable them to avoid such damage .

Operative part

( 1 ) The application for the adoption of interim measures is dismissed .

( 2 ) Costs are reserved .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Judgment annulling a measure - Effects - Annulment of the marking of tests in an open competition and of the acts in the subsequent procedure - Effect on the validity of appointments made

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Art . 91 )

Summary

The annulment by the Court of First Instance of the decision by a competition selection board concerning the marking of a written test and the subsequent acts in the competition procedure because of an irregularity such as might place in question compliance with the principle of equality between candidates does not, in the case of an open competition for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment, automatically invalidate appointments made on the basis of the list of successful candidates adopted by the selection board .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for annulment - Measures in respect of which proceedings may be brought - Measures of the European Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties .

( EEC Treaty, Art . 173 )

Summary

In order that a measure of the European Parliament may be contested by way of an action for annulment, it must be intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties . That cannot be said of measures which concern only the internal organization of the Parliament' s work, such as those relating to the appointment of the members and the election of the chairmen of interparliamentary delegations .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Action for annulment - Time-limits - Expiry of time-limits

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, third paragraph)

2. Action for failure to act - Adoption of a decision - Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 175)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial damage - Damage which cannot be wholly recouped - Weighing up of all the interests in question

( EEC Treaty, Art . 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ) )

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measures . Damage of a financial nature is not in principle considered to be serious and irreparable unless it could not be wholly recouped if the applicant were to be successful in the main action . Even assuming that the alleged damage could not be made good entirely by an award of damages, the commercial interests which the applicant seeks to protect should be weighed against the interests of the Community .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Decision of the Commission authorizing a Member State to take safeguard measures ° Producers and importers of the product in question ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, Arts 177 and 178);

Summary

A Commission decision, taken under Articles 177 and 178 of the Fourth ACP-EEC Lomé Convention, addressed to a Member State and authorizing it to restrict, for a specified period, the importation into its territory of fresh bananas originating in certain non-member countries, which are parties to the Convention, constitutes, with regard to the traders engaged in the production and importation of those products, a measure of general application which applies to situations determined objectively and has legal effects with regard to categories of persons referred to in general and abstract terms. It does not affect them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguish them individually just as in the case of the person addressed, and it is not therefore of individual concern to them within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Statement in the appeal of the pleas in law and legal arguments relied on ° Plea in law insufficiently precise ° Inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1))

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mistaken assessment of the facts ° Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice EEC, Art. 51)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility ° Question bearing no relation to the main dispute ° Submission of a question without any explanation of the factual and legislative context

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court defines the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explains the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. Those requirements are of particular importance in the sphere of competition which is characterized by complex factual and legal situations.

Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling which are extraneous to the dispute before the national court, refer to documents which have not been communicated to the Court or fail to set out the facts on which they are founded are therefore all manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation abolishing customs duties in trade between the Community of Ten and Spain

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation (EEC) No 3830/92)

Summary

The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act adopting the measure in question. In order for a measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed.

A regulation providing for the abolition of customs duties in trade between the Community of Ten and Spain, on products which are subject to a common organization of the market, applies to situations determined objectively and has legal effects for categories of persons envisaged in a general and abstract way. It concerns Spanish margarine producers only in their objective capacity as producers of a commodity subject to customs duties in trade between Spain and the remainder of the Community in the same way as every other trader in the same position and neither the damage which the producers expect to suffer from the abolition of the customs duties nor the purpose alleged to be behind the regulation, namely the abolition of tariff protection, allow them to consider themselves individually concerned by the measure in question.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Preparatory act ° Decision of Joint Committee not to examine the merits of an official at the time of drawing up list of officials most deserving of promotion ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

A decision by the Joint Committee, at the time when the list of candidates most deserving of promotion is drawn up, not to examine the merits of a candidate is merely an act which is preparatory to promotion decisions, and cannot therefore be the subject-matter of an action.
Keywords



Keywords

Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility — Appeal dismissed — (EC Statute of Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Actions ° Judgment annulling a decision ° Effects ° Annulment of the decision of the selection board in an open competition awarding an eliminatory mark to a candidate ° Duties of the selection board and the appointing authority

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

Summary

Where the Court of First Instance has annulled the decision of a selection board in an open competition awarding the applicant a lower mark for one of the tests than the minimum required and thereby excluded him from the other tests, it is for the selection board and the appointing authority to seek a just solution in the case of the person concerned, which will adequately protect his rights without the need to call in question the entire results of the competition or to annul the appointments which have been made as a result thereof. It is not for the court hearing the application for interim measures to specify detailed methods of giving effect to the judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility of questions ° Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context ° Questions submitted in a context which precludes 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 this 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 also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC 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.

Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible ° inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law ° where the order for reference merely refers to criminal breaches of national copyright legislation and to the question, raised in that context, as to whether the monopoly held by a company having the exclusive right to manage such copyright and the authority to require payment of fees with protection backed by criminal penalties is compatible with Community law, and where it fails to give sufficient details of the factual context of the dispute, the national legislative context or the precise reasons which prompted it to consider the interpretation of Community law and to deem it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Application rendered devoid of purpose - No need to give a decision
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 1996. - Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Appeal clearly inadmissible. - Case C-49/96 P.



European Court reports 1996 Page I-06803



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility - Dismissal

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea contesting a line of reasoning put forward in the judgment but not one of its essential grounds - Nugatory plea

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea submitted for the first time during the appeal proceedings - Inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

4 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea contesting the decision of the Court of First Instance regarding costs - Inadmissible where all other pleas rejected

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, second para.)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions not relating to specific technical points, submitted without providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context

(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.

The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC 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.

The requirement for the national court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking is less pressing where the questions relate to specific technical points and enable the Court to give a useful reply even where the national court has not given an exhaustive description of the legal and factual situation.

None the less, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible where the order for reference does not contain sufficient information regarding the factual and legal situation in the case before it and merely reproduces the questions suggested by the defendants in the main proceedings.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Application to suspend the enforcement of a judgment of the Court of Justice given pursuant to an arbitration clause - Dismissal

(Arts 244 EC and 256 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Manifestly irrelevant questions and questions regarding hypothetical problems in a context which precludes any useful answer - Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings - Court's lack of jurisdiction

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The Court cannot give a preliminary ruling where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by a national court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical and the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

That is the case where questions concerning the interpretation of general principles which form part of Community law have no relation to the purpose of the main action.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 October 1998. - Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Cover by the Common Sickness Insurance Scheme - Ex-spouse of a former official - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and unfounded. - Case C-228/97 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-06047



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance - Appeal manifestly unfounded or inadmissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
61997O0196

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 1998. - Intertronic - F. Cornelis GmbH v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal clearly unfounded. - Case C-196/97 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-00199
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Appeals - Party having waived the right to submit a reply - Decision of the Court to dispense with the oral part of the procedure - Application for opening of the oral procedure or, alternatively, re-opening of the written procedure - Dismissal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 117(1) and 120)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility of questions referred - Where the order for reference gives no indication of the factual or legislative context and fails to give reasons justifying the reference to the Court

(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.

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 make it possible for the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is for the Court to ensure that this possibility is safeguarded, given that, pursuant to the aforementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

Consequently, a reference from a national court for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible where it does not contain any information which satisfies the above requirements with respect to the factual and legal context of the dispute before the national court or the reasons for which that Court considers it necessary to refer certain questions to the Court of Justice.
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-154/98 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-01451



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.