ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Measures not prejudging the decision on the substance - Main action concerning non-contractual liability of the Community - Payment of sums by way of advance on the damages claimed - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Arts 178, 186 and 215, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 107(3) and (4))

Summary

Interim measures which can be ordered by the judge dealing with an interlocutory application cannot have any object other than to safeguard, during the course of the procedure before the Court, the interests of one of the parties to the proceedings in order to prevent the judgment in the main action from being rendered illusory by being deprived of any practical effect. Such measures, in accordance with Article 107(3) and (4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, are therefore provisional and in principle lapse when final judgment is delivered. Consequently, they must not prejudge the decision on the substance of the case, that is to say they must not already decide the consequences of the decision to be given subsequently on the substance of the action.

An interlocutory application seeking an order that the Community pay amounts corresponding to a part of the amount at which the applicant evaluates the damage suffered in his main action under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty must therefore be dismissed.

To grant such an application would amount to anticipating the argument on the substance of the case since, when assessing whether there was a prima facie case, the judge dealing with the application would have to rule whether there was prima facie non-contractual liability on the part of the Community and then grant in part the measures sought in the main application, without the merits of that application in the light of the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty having been examined. However, a finding of liability, with the effects thereby entailed, cannot be taken on the basis of a prima facie case; it must be based on a definitive assessment of the facts and pleas in law put forward, and therefore requires that a procedure be followed in which all the parties are guaranteed the right to a fair hearing.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Communication of pleadings to interveners - Derogation - Confidential treatment - Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 19 February 1997. - Intertronic F. Cornelis GmbH v Commission of the European Communities. - Complaint - Request to Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Action for failure to act - Inadmissibility. - Case T-117/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00141



Summary



Keywords

1 Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Concept of complaint within the meaning of Regulation No 17 - Assessment with reference to the purpose of the complaint - Complaint seeking a finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty - Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169; Regulation No 17, Art. 3)

2 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to open a procedure for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175, para. 3)

Summary

3 The nature of a complaint to the Commission must be determined with reference to its purpose and not only with regard to its form. Mere reference to Article 3 of Regulation No 17, without further observation, in a letter to the Commission cannot serve to give that letter the character of a complaint under that article when it is apparent that its purpose is to obtain a declaration that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.

It should not be possible for a plaintiff to circumvent the applicable rules by seeking to remove a procedure from the ambit of Article 169 of the Treaty by artificially subjecting it to the principles set out in Regulation No 17, which put the plaintiff in a better procedural position than under Article 169 of the Treaty.

4 An action brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, in infringement of the Treaty, the Commission failed to act by not initiating proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations with regard to a Member State is inadmissible.

In fact, natural and legal persons may only rely on the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty in order to challenge the Commission's failure to adopt measures of which they are potential addressees. In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 169 of the Treaty, the only measures which the Commission may adopt are measures addressed to Member States.

Moreover, it is apparent from the scheme of Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not bound to initiate the procedure provided for therein but has a discretion in this regard which excludes the right for individuals to require that institution to adopt a specific position.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 1996. - Syndicat des producteurs de viande bovine de la coordination rurale, Syndicat des producteurs de lait de la coordination rurale and Philippe de Villiers v Commission of the European Communities. - Common agricultural policy - Emergency measures for protection of public health - Action for damages - Unforeseeable damage - Inadmissibility. - Case T-53/96.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01579



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application originating proceedings - Formal requirements - Summary of the pleas relied on - Application for reparation of damage caused by a Community institution - No evidence of the damage suffered or of a causal link - Inadmissible - Not possible to make good lack of evidence by requesting appointment of an expert for determining the material damage allegedly suffered

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c), 64(2)(b) and (c), and 65(d))

Summary

Under Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, any application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and contain a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. An application for reparation of damage alleged to have been caused by a Community institution which does not provide the slightest evidence of either the nature of the alleged damage or of the way in which it was caused by the conduct of the defendant institution does not satisfy those requirements.

Such a total lack of particulars cannot be regarded as being made good by a request, made in the application, for appointment of an expert for determining the material damage to be made good. Such a request cannot be granted in so far as it seeks measures of inquiry under Article 65(d) of the Rules of Procedure since such a measure presupposes that the facts to be proved are identified, which the application fails to do. Nor can it be granted in so far as it seeks a measure of organization of procedure under Article 64(2)(b) and (c) of those Rules because its purpose is neither to determine the points requiring further inquiry nor to clarify the forms of order sought or the points at issue between the parties.
61996B0089

Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 29 May 1997. - British Steel plc v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention - Confidentiality. - Case T-89/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00835
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action seeking annulment of a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty - Action brought by a regional authority of a federal State - Inadmissible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33; EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

A federal regional authority is not entitled to bring an action seeking annulment of a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty since such authorities are not referred to by Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty, which provides an exhaustive list of the persons entitled to bring an action for annulment, and Article 173 of the EC Treaty cannot apply to such an action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Meaning - Onus of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 40/94)

Summary

The urgency of the adoption of interim measures must be considered by examining whether the implementation of the contested measures, prior to the adoption of the decision of the Community judicature on the main issue, is such as to give rise, for the party requesting the measures, to serious and irreversible damage which could not be made good if the contested decision were annulled or which, despite its interim nature, would be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in having the measures implemented, even when they are the subject of legal proceedings. It is for the applicant to prove that those conditions are satisfied.

An application for interim measures seeking suspension of the operation of a decision, adopted in connection with the implementation of Regulation No 40/94, whereby the President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) fixed the rules for the organization of the Boards of Appeal must be rejected where the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence to support his claims to the effect that the hierarchical subordination laid down by the contested decision for the members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office could have an adverse effect on their independence throughout the duration of their term of office, causing serious and irreparable damage.

If there has been no act of the Office adopted pursuant to the contested decision which actually impairs the independence of the applicant and the applicant has not adduced any evidence which might demonstrate the existence of such a risk, suspension of the operation of the contested decision is not in any way a matter of urgency.
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, and 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 relevant measure actually reached the addressee and the latter was able to see that it was addressed to him.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - A decision imposing a periodic penalty payment and a decision definitively fixing the amount thereof - Difference

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art. 16(1))

2 Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action contesting a decision which has several addressees but indicates only the address of one as the notification address of the others - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1 Any measure producing binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

The decision referred to in Article 16(1) of Regulation No 17 imposing a periodic penalty payment expressed in terms of a number of units of account per day of delay, calculated from a date fixed by it, does not produce binding legal effects and does not therefore constitute a challengeable measure for the purposes of Article 173 of the Treaty. Nor does such a decision produce binding legal effects in so far as it holds the applicant jointly liable for the periodic penalty payments imposed on addressees of the same decision. That decision constitutes only a procedural stage during which the Commission adopts, where appropriate, a decision definitively fixing the total amount of the periodic penalty payment and thus bearing enforceable authority. Before it may adopt this enforceable decision, the Commission must, however, fulfil certain procedural obligations.

2 Where a decision having a number of addressees indicates only the address of one of them as the notification address of the others, the addressee who receives notification cannot have any interest in challenging any irregularities in notification since he is not obliged to forward the decision to the other addressees and, if the notification were to be regarded as irregular, the decision would quite simply take no effect in their regard.

The question whether irregularities were committed in such notification will be relevant only if it should be necessary to determine whether the contested decision was properly notified to the other addressees and, should this be the case, to determine the date from which the period which they had for instituting proceedings against that decision under Article 173 of the Treaty began to run.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 19 June 1997. - Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs). - Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) - Decision of the President of the Office concerning the organization of the Boards of Appeal - Risk of harm in the event of delay - None. - Case T-159/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01049



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Meaning - Onus of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 40/94)

Summary

The urgency of the adoption of interim measures must be considered by examining whether the implementation of the contested measures, prior to the adoption of the decision of the Community judicature on the main issue, is such as to give rise, for the party requesting the measures, to serious and irreversible damage which could not be made good if the contested decision were annulled or which, despite its interim nature, would be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in having the measures implemented, even when they are the subject of legal proceedings. It is for the applicant to prove that those conditions are satisfied.

An application for interim measures seeking suspension of the operation of a decision, adopted in connection with the implementation of Regulation No 40/94, whereby the President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) fixed the rules for the organization of the Boards of Appeal must be rejected where the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence to support his claims to the effect that the hierarchical subordination laid down by the contested decision for the members of the Boards of Appeal of the Office could have an adverse effect on their independence throughout the duration of their term of office, causing serious and irreparable damage.

If there has been no act of the Office adopted pursuant to the contested decision which actually impairs the independence of the applicant and the applicant has not adduced any evidence which might demonstrate the existence of such a risk, suspension of the operation of the contested decision is not in any way a matter of urgency.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

9 February 2000

Case T-165/97

Carlos Gómez de la Cruz Talegón

v

Commission of the European Communities

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

Full text in Spanish II-79

Application for:

annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 July 1996 rejecting the applicant's request for a review of his initial classification and of the Commission's decision of 3 February 1997 rejecting the complaint which the applicant lodged against that decision.

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 13 February 1998. - Guérin automobiles EURL v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-275/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00253



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, and 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 relevant measure actually reached the addressee and the latter was able to see that it was addressed to him.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 1997. - Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Commission of the European Communities. - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Reduction coefficient - Suspension of operation - Interim measures - Admissibility of an application for interim measures - Serious and irreparable harm. - Case T-230/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01589



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - No such damage in the case of a banana importer seeking application of a reduction coefficient more favourable than that set by the contested regulation

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

Where an application for interim measures is made by importers of bananas from third countries seeking suspension, before the definitive reduction coefficient for the current marketing year is fixed and until judgment is given in the main action, of operation of Regulation No 1155/97, fixing the reduction coefficients for the determination of the quantity of bananas to be allocated to each operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for 1997, and issue of the number of import certificates to which the applicants claim to be entitled, the condition relating to urgency laid down in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is not fulfilled where the loss which the applicants claim they will wrongly have to suffer cannot be regarded as being such as to cause serious damage to undertakings of their size and where the alleged damage is reparable in so far as any reduction in imports would constitute an economic loss which could be made good by the means of redress provided for in the Treaty.

Upholding the applicants' claims would also encroach on the Commission's powers to establish the reduction coefficient and would entail the adoption of measures which would not be provisional but which would produce effects identical to those sought by the main application, since they would merely anticipate what would ensue from annulment of the contested regulation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 24 June 1998. - Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Competition law - Decision requiring the supply of information - Periodic penalty payments - Notification - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-596/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02383



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - A decision imposing a periodic penalty payment and a decision definitively fixing the amount thereof - Difference

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Regulation No 17 of the Council, Art. 16(1))

2 Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action contesting a decision which has several addressees but indicates only the address of one as the notification address of the others - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

1 Any measure producing binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

The decision referred to in Article 16(1) of Regulation No 17 imposing a periodic penalty payment expressed in terms of a number of units of account per day of delay, calculated from a date fixed by it, does not produce binding legal effects and does not therefore constitute a challengeable measure for the purposes of Article 173 of the Treaty. Nor does such a decision produce binding legal effects in so far as it holds the applicant jointly liable for the periodic penalty payments imposed on addressees of the same decision. That decision constitutes only a procedural stage during which the Commission adopts, where appropriate, a decision definitively fixing the total amount of the periodic penalty payment and thus bearing enforceable authority. Before it may adopt this enforceable decision, the Commission must, however, fulfil certain procedural obligations.

2 Where a decision having a number of addressees indicates only the address of one of them as the notification address of the others, the addressee who receives notification cannot have any interest in challenging any irregularities in notification since he is not obliged to forward the decision to the other addressees and, if the notification were to be regarded as irregular, the decision would quite simply take no effect in their regard.

The question whether irregularities were committed in such notification will be relevant only if it should be necessary to determine whether the contested decision was properly notified to the other addressees and, should this be the case, to determine the date from which the period which they had for instituting proceedings against that decision under Article 173 of the Treaty began to run.