ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Competition - Administrative proceeding - Cessation of infringements - Adoption of provisional measures - Commission' s powers - Conditions for exercise

( Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art . 3(1 ) )

2 . Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Prohibition - Exemption according to categories - Regulation No 123/85 - Object and scope

( EEC Treaty, Art . 85(1 ) and ( 3 ); Commission Regulation No 123/85 )

3 . Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of the operation of provisional measures adopted in competition matters - Conditions for granting

( Rules of Procedure, Art . 83(2 ); Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art . 3 )

Summary

1 . It is for the Commission, in the exercise of the supervisory task conferred upon it in competition matters by the Treaty and Regulation No 17 to decide, pursuant to Article 3(1 ) of Regulation No 17, whether it is necessary to adopt provisional measures if a request to that effect is made to it . Such measures must, however, be of a temporary nature and restricted to what is necessary in the given situation .

2 . Regulation No 123/85 on the application of Article 85(3 ) of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor-vehicle distribution and servicing agreements is limited to providing economic agents in the motor-vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1 ) despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses .

It follows that it cannot be said, in general terms, that motor-vehicle distribution has been exempted from the application of Article 85(1 ).

3 . When application is made for suspension of the operation of an order issued provisionally by the Commission in respect of an undertaking pending a final decision within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 17 the judge hearing the application must consider whether there is a serious risk that the detrimental effects of such an order might, if it were put into operation immediately, exceed those of a conservatory measure and in the meantime cause damage considerably in excess of the inevitable but short-lived disadvantages arising from such a measure .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension - Decision withdrawing immunity from fines, addressed to an undertaking which has notified an agreement - Absence of serious and irreparable harm

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 185; Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art. 15(6))

Summary

A decision adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 15(6) of Regulation No 17 is confined to informing the undertaking to which it is adhered of the preliminary opinions of the Commission of the compatibility of a notified agreement with Article 85 of the Treaty and to terminating the immunity which that undertaking could claim by virtue of its having notified the agreement. By its very nature, it does not, in itself, contain any injunction and required no enforcement and is thus not capable of forming the subject of a measure suspending its application. It is, moreover, incapable of causing its addressee serious and irreparable harm in so far as the loss of immunity resulting from it can in any event give rise only to future and uncertain damage which the undertaking concerned is in a position to assess and to which it can put an end at any time, if it considers this to be appropriate.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Interpretation of a judgment ° Conditions governing admissibility of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129)

Summary

An application for interpretation of a judgment must, in order to be admissible, concern the operative part of the judgment in question, together with the essential grounds, and seek to resolve an obscurity or ambiguity that may affect the meaning or scope of that judgment, in so far as the Court was required to decide the particular case before it.

Such an application is therefore inadmissible where it relates to matters not decided by the judgment concerned or seeks to obtain from the Court in question an opinion on the application, implementation or consequences of its judgment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials - Action - Action for damages brought in the absence of a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials - Action - Prior administrative complaint - Distinct from a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Distinction a matter for the Court to determine

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1) and (2))

Summary

1. Under the system of means of redress established by Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials an action for damages, which constitutes an autonomous means of redress, separate from the action for annulment, is admissible only if it has been preceded by a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Staff Regulations. That procedure differs according to whether the damage for which reparation is sought results from an act having adverse effect within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations or from conduct on the part of the administration which contains nothing in the nature of a decision.

In the first case it is for the person concerned to submit to the appointing authority, within the prescribed time-limit, a complaint directed against the act in question. In the second case, on the other hand, the administrative procedure must commence with the submission of a request, within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, for compensation. It is only the express or implied rejection of that request which constitutes a decision having adverse effect against which a complaint may be directed and it is only after the express or implied rejection of that complaint that an action for damages may be brought before the Court of First Instance.

2. When it comes to classifying a document addressed by an official to the appointing authority as a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations or as a complaint within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, the Court of First Instance is not bound by the wishes of the parties.

Where, upon examining the circumstances of the case, it becomes apparent that the document which the applicant described as a complaint contains a request to the appointing authority to take a decision and cannot be regarded as constituting a challenge to a decision, express or implied, adversely affecting the person concerned, that document must be regarded as a request.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of the operation of a decision laying down interim measures relating to competition ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

Where both granting a suspension of operation of a Commission decision prescribing interim measures relating to competition and refusing to grant such suspension would in practice have the effect of depriving the final decision of the Court of First Instance of any effects in so far as such a decision could not in all likelihood be arrived at until a time at which the Commission decision had already produced, or failed to produce, its effects, depending on whether or not the suspension of operation requested is granted, it is necessary to strike a balance between the interests of sound administration of justice, on the one hand, and, on the other, the interests of the parties, including the Commission' s interest in bringing to an end forthwith the infringement of the competition rules contained in the Treaty which it claims to have ascertained.

In order to avoid both the creation of an irreversible situation and serious and irreparable damage to one of the parties to the proceedings, a temporary solution, ensuring that the market does not develop in an irreversible manner and requiring the applicant to remove certain barriers to access to the market, must be imposed, without thereby appreciably harming the exclusive distribution system which the applicant has set up over a period of many years.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a decision applying the competition rules ° Action for the annulment of a decision exempting a system of selective distribution for de luxe cosmetics ° Association representing undertakings which are parties to distribution systems such as that with which the decision is concerned

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Damage strictly pecuniary

(EEC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The urgent nature of an application for interim measures under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be assessed by reference to the need to give an interim ruling in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the interim measure.

In this connection, in principle purely pecuniary damage cannot be regarded as irreparable or even as difficult to repair since ex hypothesi it may be the subject of subsequent financial compensation. However, it is for the court hearing the application for interim measures to assess the factors which, in the particular circumstances of each case, are such as to establish whether, if the interim relief sought is not granted, the applicant is likely to be exposed to the risk of damage which cannot be repaired even if the contested decisions are subsequently annulled in the main proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Directive containing specific provisions for homeopathic medicinal products ° Action brought by manufacturers and importers of such products ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art 173, second para.; Council Directive 93/73, Arts 7 and 9)

Summary

Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 92/73 widening the scope of Directives 65/65 and 75/319 on pharmaceutical products and laying down additional provisions on homeopathic medicinal products are not of direct and individual concern, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to manufacturers and importers of homeopathic medicinal products who cannot, therefore, bring an action to have those provisions annulled.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Application for interim measures ° Persons concerned ° Main proceedings concerning the validity of a decision implementing competition rules ° Complainant undertaking

(Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 37, second para. Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

2. Procedure ° Intervention ° Disclosure of pleadings to interveners ° Exception ° Confidentiality ° Conditions

(Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 37, second para. Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))

3. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a decision concerning competition ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved

(EEC Treaty, Arts 85 and 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal from proceedings not justified by conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Application for suspension of the operation of a provision in a regulation providing for a period for the acceptance of offers of compensation to certain producers of milk - Application based on the applicants' interest in knowing, before the expiry of that period, whether the President, by way of interim decision in another case, suspends the operation of that regulation with regard to the consequences of such acceptance - Operation suspended

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Council Regulation No 2187/93, Art. 14, third and fourth paragraphs)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for failure to act ° Natural or legal persons ° Actionable omissions ° Failure to initiate infringement proceedings ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Arts 169, 173, fourth para., and Article 175, third para.)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations ° Right of action reserved to the Commission and the Member States ° Action brought by a natural or legal person ° Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 170)

Summary

1. An action for a failure to act brought by a natural or legal person seeking a declaration that, by not bringing infringement proceedings against a Member State, the Commission has declined contrary to the Treaty to adopt a decision, are inadmissible.

First, the Commission is not bound to commence proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty but enjoys a discretionary power which precludes any right on the part of individuals to require it to adopt a specific position.

Secondly, natural or legal persons may apply to the Community judicature under the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty only for a declaration that one of the institutions has declined contrary to the Treaty to adopt decisions of which they are the potential recipients. Yet, in the case of proceedings under Article 169 for failure to fulfil obligations, the only acts which the Commission may be minded to adopt are ones addressed to Member States.

Finally, a natural or legal person requesting the Commission to commence proceedings under Article 169 is in fact seeking the adoption of acts not of direct and individual concern to that person within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173, and therefore in no way open to challenge in annulment proceedings.

2. Under the terms of Articles 169 and 170 of the Treaty, the power to apply to the Community judicature for a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations is not extended to natural or legal persons but only to the Commission and the Member States.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Suspension of operation of a decision imposing a fine ° Conditions for granting ° Provision of a guarantee ° Whether permissible ° Limits ° Exceptional circumstances

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

Summary

The judge hearing an application for interim measures may order suspension of the obligation on the applicant undertaking to provide a bank guarantee ensuring payment of the fine imposed on it only if there are exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances may, in particular, result from the fact that the provision of a bank guarantee would jeopardize the undertaking' s very existence or that the grounds of challenge put forward in the main application against the decision imposing the fine raise immediately particularly serious doubts as to the legality of that decision.

With regard to the difficulties experienced by the applicant, by reason of its financial position, in obtaining from a bank the guarantee required by the Commission, those difficulties cannot be regarded as insurmountable on the sole ground that the grant of the bank guarantee is subject to the pledging by the applicant' s members of their personal assets by way of security. In view of the public interest in seeing Commission decisions implemented and the Community' s financial interests safeguarded, and in view of the potential advantages which might accrue for a company' s members from its anti-competitive conduct, it seems appropriate to take account of any possibilities which members may have to assist the undertaking in providing a bank guarantee.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Definition - Circumstances to be taken into account - Travel and subsistence expenses of persons other than the lawyers of the parties - Economists' fees - Conditions of recovery

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

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. Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court of First Instance must freely consider the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings and 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 dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by persons other than the lawyer of the applicant concerned are recoverable only if the presence of such persons was necessary for the purposes of the proceedings. The fees of an economist instructed by the applicant are to be considered necessary expenses only where the economist's involvement was necessary.

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

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Measures of inquiry - Request for production of a document - Dismissed - Document not relevant for the purposes of the dispute

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 64(3)(d) and 65(b))

Summary

The interest in the result of a case required before a natural or legal person may intervene under Article 34 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the ECSC, applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 46 thereof, cannot be established by an indirect interest concerning a similarity of situations but must, on the contrary, be defined in regard to the actual subject-matter of the case, as circumscribed by the forms of order sought by the parties.

Consequently, where a complaint brought before the Commission is directed against a producer of coal, on the ground that the royalties which it has levied infringe Articles 4(d), 65 and 66(7) of the ECSC Treaty, and against a purchaser of coal, on the ground that, by applying discriminatory prices, it infringed Article 63 of the ECSC Treaty and Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, it cannot be argued that the legal persons who have succeeded to the rights of the purchaser of the coal have a direct and present interest in intervening in an application by the producer for annulment of the Commission's implied refusal to reject the complaint, since the practices thus complained of are not only distinct but also do not share the same legal framework.

In contrast, the person who made the complaint does have a direct and present interest in the result of the case and is therefore entitled to intervene, since the application seeks the annulment of a decision favourable to it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the annulment of a regulation in the field of conservation and management of fishery resources in the North-West Atlantic ° Xunta de Galicia ° Whether admissible ° Absence of pleas in law and legal arguments in the application to intervene ° Not relevant

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the right to intervene in cases before the Court of First Instance is open to any person establishing an interest in the result of the case.

The Xunta de Galicia must therefore be granted leave to intervene in a case concerning the annulment of Regulation No 1761/95 amending, for the second time, Regulation No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries, inasmuch as it establishes the quota for Greenland halibut for the Community fleet. First, the economic and social structure of the Autonomous Community of Galicia relies essentially on the fishing industry and, secondly, under the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and its Statute of Autonomy it is incumbent on that Community to defend its identity and its interests not only before national bodies but also before international bodies whose decisions could affect it.

Moreover, the application to intervene submitted by the Autonomous Community of Galicia cannot be declared inadmissible on the ground that it does not include a brief statement of the pleas and arguments on which it intends to rely, since such a statement is not one of the conditions under Article 115 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

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

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and fourth para. of 173)

2. Actions for failure to act ° Natural or legal persons ° Actionable omissions ° Failure to initiate the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations ° Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175)

Summary

1. 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 because, first, Article 169 of the Treaty confers a discretionary power on the Commission to initiate that procedure and, secondly ° in view of the fact that a negative decision must be appraised in the light of the request to which it constitutes a reply ° the purpose of that request is to elicit the Commission' s adoption of a reasoned opinion, which itself is not an act which can form the subject-matter of proceedings for annulment.

2. An action for failure to act brought by a natural or legal person which seeks a declaration that by deciding not to initiate the procedure for failure to fulfil obligations against a Member State the Commission has failed to act, in breach of the Treaty, is inadmissible.

In the first place, Article 175 refers to failure to act in the sense of failure to take a decision or to define a position, and not the adoption of a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the persons concerned. Secondly, the action for failure to act is contingent on the institution concerned being under an obligation to act, so that its alleged failure to act is contrary to the Treaty.

However, it is clear from Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not bound to initiate the procedure provided for therein; on the contrary, it has in this regard a discretion which excludes the right for individuals to require that institution to adopt a specific position.