ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 21 May 1999. - Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron, Monin automobiles SA and Europe auto services (EAS) SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Obligations regarding the investigation of complaints - Legality of grounds for rejection - Summary statement of pleas - Partial admissibility. - Case T-154/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01703



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Summary of the pleas in law relied upon - Incorporation of observations submitted in the course of the pre-litigation procedure - Whether admissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Summary of the pleas in law - Terminology - Whether obligatory to use the terms used in the Rules of Procedure - No such obligation

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1 Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must indicate the subject-matter of the dispute and briefly state the grounds on which the application is based. Irrespective of any question of terminology, that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, even without further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself. Whilst the body of the application may be supported and supplemented on specific points by references to extracts from documents annexed thereto, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in law which, in accordance with the abovementioned provisions, must appear in the application.

In those circumstances, the reproduction in the body of the application of the full text of observations submitted by the applicant in the course of the pre-litigation procedure, coupled with the express statement that they form the basis of the action, cannot be equated with mere reference to or reproduction of an annex.

2 The statement of pleas in the application need not match the terms and the order used in the Rules of Procedure and, whilst they may be expressed in terms of substance rather than legal classification, it may be sufficient if the application sets them out with sufficient clarity.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community - Rules applicable to both `traditional operators' and `newcomers' - Action brought by traditional operators responsible for a significant number of the imports from a particular non-member country - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

Summary

$$An action for annulment is inadmissible when brought by traditional operators - banana importers who belong to a group from a non-member country which accounts for a significant volume of the bananas imported into the Community - in respect of Regulation No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community.

The general scope and hence the legislative nature of a measure are not called in question by the fact that it is possible to determine, with a greater or lesser degree of precision, the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment, so long as it is established that it is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to its objective. All traditional operators and new operators who satisfy the necessary conditions laid down in Regulation No 2632/98 are entitled to apply for import licences for bananas originating in the countries to which part of the tariff quota was allocated. Consequently, the applicants, traditional operators, are affected by the provisions in question precisely by virtue of a situation objectively determined by the contested regulation in relation to the objective of that regulation.

The fact that certain operators are economically more affected by a measure than their competitors does not suffice for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure, since it does not affect them on account of certain characteristics which are specific to them or on account of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Consideration of the admissibility of the main application - Inappropriate - Limits

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Officials - Actions - Right of action - Persons claiming the status of official or servant other than local staff - A person not explicitly mentioned in a decision permitting the appointment of officials by way of derogation from the Staff Regulations

(EC Treaty, Art. 179 (now Art. 236 EC); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

Summary

1 The question of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in proceedings for interim relief, but must be reserved for the examination of the main action, except where it appears to be prima facie manifestly inadmissible. To determine admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not prima facie entirely inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action.

2 Article 179 of the Treaty (now Article 236 EC), which confers on the Community judicature jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment, must be construed as applying exclusively to persons who have the status of official or of servant other than local staff and to persons claiming that status. Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, concerning appeals, apply not only to those who are officials but also to candidates for a post or in an open competition.

When, by way of derogation from the Staff Regulations, a Council decision permits the appointing authority to appoint as probationer officials a specific category of persons, a person who does not come within that category cannot be deemed a candidate for a post with the Communities.

3 The urgent nature of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim decision in order to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the interests of the party applying for the interim measure.

It is for that party to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering injury involving serious and irreparable consequences.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Indispensable expenses incurred by the parties - Definition - Expense of payment of litigation insurance - Included - Conditions

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

Summary

$$It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that recoverable costs are confined to expenses which are both incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and indispensable for such purposes. The term indispensable expenses cannot cover expenses incurred by a party which are not directly connected with its defence before the Court but are simply a matter of its own choice.

It follows that the expense of paying a litigation insurance premium, even if incurred for the purposes of proceedings before the Court of First Instance, cannot, as a rule, be considered to be an indispensable expense within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure. However, it might be so considered in exceptional circumstances, where the party concerned can prove, on the basis of objective evidence, that it would not have been able to bring its action without a litigation insurance policy guaranteeing, in the event of an order for costs being made against it, payment of the costs of the opposite party.

( see paras 16-18 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Time-limits for bringing an action - Calculation the applicant's own responsibility - Information given by a Registry official - Not relevant

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 101 and 102)

Summary

$$The calculation of the time-limit for bringing an action is a matter for the applicant. It does not fall within the tasks and powers of officials of the Registry of the Court of First Instance to give a ruling in that respect

( see para. 26 )
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 21 June 1999. - Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo v Council of the European Union. - Application for interim measures - Decision 1999/307/EC - Incorporation of the Schengen secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council - Admissibility of the main action - Urgency. - Case T-107/99 R.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01939

Page IA-00107

Page II-00591



Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Conditions for admissibility - Consideration of the admissibility of the main application - Inappropriate - Limits

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Officials - Actions - Right of action - Persons claiming the status of official or servant other than local staff - A person not explicitly mentioned in a decision permitting the appointment of officials by way of derogation from the Staff Regulations

(EC Treaty, Art. 179 (now Art. 236 EC); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

Summary

1 The question of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in proceedings for interim relief, but must be reserved for the examination of the main action, except where it appears to be prima facie manifestly inadmissible. To determine admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not prima facie entirely inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action.

2 Article 179 of the Treaty (now Article 236 EC), which confers on the Community judicature jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment, must be construed as applying exclusively to persons who have the status of official or of servant other than local staff and to persons claiming that status. Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, concerning appeals, apply not only to those who are officials but also to candidates for a post or in an open competition.

When, by way of derogation from the Staff Regulations, a Council decision permits the appointing authority to appoint as probationer officials a specific category of persons, a person who does not come within that category cannot be deemed a candidate for a post with the Communities.

3 The urgent nature of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim decision in order to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the interests of the party applying for the interim measure.

It is for that party to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering injury involving serious and irreparable consequences.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Action contesting a Commission decision authorising the parties to an agreement between undertakings to implement the latter — Authorisation for a limited period which expired during the legal proceedings — Agreement not implemented — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1017/68, Art. 12(3))

Summary

An action for the annulment of a Commission decision deciding not to raise serious doubts in relation to certain provisions of an agreement falling within the scope of Regulation No 1017/68 applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway, will be devoid of purpose, rendering it unnecessary to adjudicate, where the exemption arising therefrom applied, by virtue of Article 12(3) of that regulation, only for a limited period which came to an end during the legal proceedings and, in addition, the provisions in question were not implemented by the parties to the agreement.

see paras 34, 38
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 1999. - Firma Léon Van Parijs NV, Pacific Fruit Company NV, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Action for annulment - Persons individually concerned - Restricted group of operators - Inadmissibility. - Case T-11/99.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02653



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community - Rules applicable to both `traditional operators' and `newcomers' - Action brought by traditional operators responsible for a significant number of the imports from a particular non-member country - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 404/93; Commission Regulation No 2362/98)

Summary

$$An action for annulment is inadmissible when brought by traditional operators - banana importers who belong to a group from a non-member country which accounts for a significant volume of the bananas imported into the Community - in respect of Regulation No 2362/98 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community.

The general scope and hence the legislative nature of a measure are not called in question by the fact that it is possible to determine, with a greater or lesser degree of precision, the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment, so long as it is established that it is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to its objective. All traditional operators and new operators who satisfy the necessary conditions laid down in Regulation No 2632/98 are entitled to apply for import licences for bananas originating in the countries to which part of the tariff quota was allocated. Consequently, the applicants, traditional operators, are affected by the provisions in question precisely by virtue of a situation objectively determined by the contested regulation in relation to the objective of that regulation.

The fact that certain operators are economically more affected by a measure than their competitors does not suffice for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure, since it does not affect them on account of certain characteristics which are specific to them or on account of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons.
Case T-224/99





The European Council of Transport Users ASBL and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Actions for annulment – Action become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 4 June 2003

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

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

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Non-pecuniary damage

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

Summary

1. Pecuniary damage cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable, or even reparable only with difficulty, if it may be the subject of subsequent compensation. Consequently, it constitutes a loss which can be redressed economically by means of the legal remedies provided for by the Treaty, particularly Article 235 EC.

( see paras 44, 47 )

2. The refusal to award a public contract will not necessarily cause irreparable damage to the reputation and credibility of tenderers whose offers were rejected. Participation in a public tender procedure, by nature highly competitive, necessarily involves risks for all the participants, and the elimination of a tenderer under the rules on tenders is not, in itself, prejudicial.

( see para. 48 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation amending the Combined Nomenclature - Action brought by an importer of mushrooms of the Agaricus variety - Inadmissible

(Arts 230, fourth para., EC, and 249, second para., EC; Commission Regulation No 2626/1999, amending Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87)

Summary

$$An action for annulment brought by an undertaking which imports preserved mushrooms of the Agaricus variety against Commission Regulation No 2626/1999, amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, which provides that, to distinguish mushrooms under subheading 2001 90 50 of the Combined Nomenclature from those under subheading 2003 10, mushrooms falling under subheading 2001 90 50 should not have a salt content exceeding a certain limit, is inadmissible.

That regulation is to be seen as a measure of general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC. It concerns, in the interests of a uniform application of the Common Customs Tariff, an objectively determined situation and produces legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract, in particular, importers of the products it describes.

Even if the applicant belongs to a closed class of economic operators holding contracts whose performance is allegedly prevented by the regulation, it does not invoke any specific provision which would have obliged the Commission to take into consideration, in the contested regulation, the situation of those operators.

Moreover, 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 as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question. The contested regulation, which applies to a situation defined objectively, concerns the applicant only in its objective capacity as an importer of the products referred to. The fact that a legislative measure may have specific effects which differ according to the various persons to whom it applies is not such as to differentiate those persons in relation to all the other operators concerned, where that measure is applied on the basis of an objectively determined situation.

However, while it is not open to the applicant to apply for the annulment of the contested regulation, it retains the right to plead the illegality of that measure before the national courts, adjudicating in accordance with Article 234 EC.

( see paras 24, 27, 29, 31-33, 36 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Application concerning, in reality, a contractual dispute - Community Court's lack of jurisdiction - Manifest inadmissibility

(Arts 230(4) EC, 238 EC and 240 EC)

Summary

$$In the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 238 EC, the Court of First Instance manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine an application which, although based on Article 230(4) EC, must be regarded as being in reality an application relating to the performance of a contract concluded by the Community. If it were otherwise, the Court would be extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 240 EC on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since that article gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

An action for annulment brought by a tenderer selected for a project co-financed by the Community against the Commission's decision to terminate the contract concluded with that tenderer relating to the implementation of the project in question is therefore manifestly inadmissible, inasmuch as, although based on Article 230(4) EC, such an action in reality constitutes an application relating to the performance of that contract.

( see paras 25, 30 )
The action brought by owners of fishing vessels established in Spain for annulment of the ninth heading of Annex I D to Regulation No 2742/1999, which, by virtue of the exchange of fishing quotas between the French Republic and the Portuguese Republic allowed 3 000 tonnes of the anchovy quota of 5 220 tonnes allocated to Portugal for the year 2000 for ICES zones IX and x and CECAF area 34.1.1 to be fished in the waters of zone VIII, which are under the sovereignty or within the jurisdiction of the French Republic, is not admissible.

The applicants are not individually concerned by the contested provision, which is of general application, by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which, with regard to that provision, they are differentiated from all other persons. More specifically, at the time of adoption of that provision, the Council did not have any obligation to take account of the particular situation of the applicants.

The action for annulment of that same provision brought by three federations of associations of owners of vessels is likewise inadmissible. An association formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, and it is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment where its members could not do so individually.

(see paras 50-52, 78)