ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
II ‑ 2489Joined Cases T-392/03, T-408/03, T-414/03 and T-435/03
Regione Siciliana
v
Commission of the European Communities
(Actions for annulment — ERDF — Withdrawal of financial assistance — 
Recovery of amounts already paid — Claims for payment of default interest — 
Set‑off — Regional or local body — Not of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 25 September 2008        II ‑ 2491
Summary of the Order
 1.  Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing 
binding legal effects
  (Art. 230 EC)
 2.  Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual 
concern to them
  (Art. 230, fourth para., EC)
II ‑ 2490SUMMARY — JOINED CASES T‑392/03, T‑408/03, T‑414/03 AND T‑435/03
 1   Only acts the legal effects of which are 
binding on, and capable if affecting the 
interests of, the applicant by bringing 
about a distinct change in his legal pos ‑
ition are acts which may be the subject 
of an action for annulment within the 
meaning of Article 230 EC 
  Letters from the Commission concerning 
the charging of default interest on charge 
notices which concern a Member State 
and are addressed to that Member State, 
which do not in themselves constitute a 
claim for payment of default interest or 
calculate the actual amount of any such 
interest and which merely set out the 
relevant Community rules concerning 
the calculation of that interest and state 
why the Commission did not of its own 
motion offset the receivables shown in 
the charge notices in question against 
the payments intended for the Member 
State, do not produce legal effects such 
as to affect the interests of the applicant 
  (see paras 36‑39)
 2   A letter by which the Commission 
announces that certain receivables, 
including amounts to be reimbursed and default interest following the withdrawal 
of financial assistance from the European 
Regional Development Fund for certain 
projects the ultimate recipient of which 
was a regional body, are to be offset 
against debts owed to the Commission 
by a Member State, although formally 
addressed by the Commission to that 
regional body, and copied, for infor ‑
mational purposes, the Ministry of the 
Economy and Finance of the Member 
State in question, constitutes a deci ‑
sion the actual addressee of which is the 
Member State 
  The Member State is the holder of those 
debts and receivables and, furthermore, 
has discretion and may decide not to 
claim from that regional body total 
or partial reimbursement of the sums 
stated in that letter, both as regards the 
principal and the default interest 
  Consequently, that decision cannot be 
regarded as being of direct concern to 
that regional body and its action must be 
dismissed as inadmissible 
  (see paras 43‑47)
Case T-253/03

Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Intervention – Dismissal – Representative association which does not have as its object the protection of its members’ interests)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 28 May 2004.

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Intervention – Interested parties – Representative association the object of which is to protect the interests of its members – Admissibility in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Under the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, the right to intervene in cases before the Court is open to representative associations which have as their object the protection of their members’ interests in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members. More specifically, an association may be granted leave to intervene if it represents an appreciable number of undertakings active in the sector concerned; if its objects include that of protecting its members’ interests; if the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned; and if the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the forthcoming judgment.

An association does not meet these criteria if its objective is merely to promote exchanges of information and contact between its members and to organise conferences intended to facilitate the study of certain areas of law.

(see paras 17-20)
Case T-245/03 R





Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim proceedings – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests – Partial and conditional suspension)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 21 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 242 EC and 243 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 – Jurisdiction of the court hearing the application for interim measures – Conditions for allowing, in order to determine the ceiling to be complied with when setting the amount of a fine for infringement of the competition rules imposed on an association of undertakings, the turnover of its members to be taken into account – Not included

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2))

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions – Serious and irreparable damage – Association of undertakings – Taking into account the financial situation of its members – Condition – Merging of the objective interests of the association and those of its members

(Art. 242 EC)

5.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine imposed for infringement of the competition rules not being recovered immediately – Balancing of all the interests involved

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

6.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Variation or cancellation – Condition – Change in circumstances – Meaning

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 108)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
52

Conversely, the travel expenses should be reduced by the expenses relating to nine journeys made by the applicant’s lawyers from Brussels to Utrecht, in an amount of EUR 1620, those relating to two journeys made by the applicant from Utrecht to Luxembourg, in an amount of EUR 760, and those relating to a journey made by the applicant’s lawyers from Brussels to Luxembourg, in an amount of EUR 218. Neither the travel expenses incurred by a lawyer in order to meet his client in person at the latter’s place of residence (see, to that effect, order of 15 March 1994 in Case C-107/91 DEP ENU v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 23), nor those incurred by an applicant in order to be present in person at a hearing before the Court in Luxembourg, without his presence being requested by the Court or necessary by reason of the circumstances (see, to that effect, orders in Case 24/79 DEP Oberthür v Commission [1981] ECR 2229, paragraphs 2 and 3; of in Case C-137/92 DEP Hüls v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 21 and 22; and in Cases T-85/94 DEP and T-85/94 OP-DEP Branco v Commission [1998] ECR II-2667), nor the expenses incurred by the lawyer of one of the parties subsequent to the closing of the oral procedure, including those incurred for the purpose of being present in person at the delivery of the Court’s judgment in Luxembourg (see, to that effect, order in Case C-104/89 DEP Mulder and Others v Council and Commission [2004] ECR I-1, paragraphs 48 to 50), can, as a rule, be considered to be necessary for the purposes of the proceedings.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 2006 – Kreuzer Medien v Parliament and Council

(Case T-310/03)

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/33/EC – Natural or legal persons – Standing to bring proceedings – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/33, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 45-47, 71-74)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Council;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act

(Art. 242 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss

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

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Non-financial loss

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

Summary

1. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking the interim measure. It is for that party to adduce proof that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage. Therefore, if the applicant does not show a link between the alleged damage and the acts suspension of whose operation is sought, the interim measures cannot be regarded as relevant and necessary for avoiding the occurrence of the alleged damage.

(see paras 65-66, 70)

2. Pecuniary damage cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even reparable only with difficulty, if it may be the subject of subsequent compensation by means, for example, of an action for compensation under Article 288 EC.

(see para. 72)

3. The decision not to award a public contract does not necessarily have the consequence of causing irreparable harm to the reputation and credibility of the tenderers which are not successful. Taking part in a public tender procedure, by nature highly competitive, necessarily involves risks for all the participants and the elimination of a tenderer under the tender rules is not in itself in any way prejudicial.

(see para. 82)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

European Union – Common foreign and security policy – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Measures adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union – Condition – Action based on failure to observe the powers of the Community (Art. 46 EU) (see paras 54-56)

2. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Action brought against Community acts intended to implement the measures laid down under a common position based on Title V of the Treaty on European Union – Included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 58)

3. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Decision replacing the contested decision adopted while the proceedings are under way – Amendment of the original forms of order sought and pleas in law – No effect as regards the decision as to the admissibility of the action (see paras 68-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of, first, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and, secondly, Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Compensation for damage caused by servants of the Community in the performance of their duties – Activity not included in the performance of the duties of that servant – No liability

(Art. 288, second para., EC)

Summary

By referring at one and the same time to damage caused by the institutions and to that caused by the servants of the Community, Article 288 EC indicates that the Community is only liable for those acts of its servants which, by virtue of an internal and direct relationship, are the necessary extension of the tasks entrusted to the institutions. In the light of the special nature of this legal system, it would not therefore be lawful to extend it to categories of acts other than those referred to.

Thus, the signature by an official of a Commission delegation in a third country of a ‘Verbal Note’ in support of an application by a close relation, who is the divorced wife of the applicant, for the issue by the local authorities of a residence permit to herself and her two children cannot be considered to be an act for which the Community is liable. The drawing up of such a ‘Verbal Note’ merely constitutes a practice and cannot be considered to be an act which is the necessary extension of tasks entrusted to the institutions – in this case, tasks entrusted to outside delegations of the Commission – and thus an act undertaken in the performance of the duties of the servant who undertook it.

(see paras 18, 22)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 25-29)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(e)) (see paras 32-33, 36-38)
Case T-303/04 R

European Dynamics SA

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Public service contracts – Community tender procedure – Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Urgency – None)

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 10 November 2004

Summary of the Order

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act

(Art. 242 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss

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

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Non-financial loss

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

1. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking the interim measure. It is for that party to adduce proof that it cannot await the outcome of the main action without suffering such damage. Therefore, if the applicant does not show a link between the alleged damage and the acts suspension of whose operation is sought, the interim measures cannot be regarded as relevant and necessary for avoiding the occurrence of the alleged damage.

(see paras 65-66, 70)

2. Pecuniary damage cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even reparable only with difficulty, if it may be the subject of subsequent compensation by means, for example, of an action for compensation under Article 288 EC.

(see para. 72)

3. The decision not to award a public contract does not necessarily have the consequence of causing irreparable harm to the reputation and credibility of the tenderers which are not successful. Taking part in a public tender procedure, by nature highly competitive, necessarily involves risks for all the participants and the elimination of a tenderer under the tender rules is not in itself in any way prejudicial.

(see para. 82)
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 June 2009 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-258/04)

‛Action for annulment — Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Time-limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Lateness — Inadmissibility’

Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Action against a regulation adopted pursuant to the 2003 Act of Accession by a State signatory to that Act not yet having the capacity of Member State — No effect — Time-limit applicable in its capacity as a legal person (Art. 230, fourth and fifth paras, EC; Act of Accession of 2003) (see paras 40-71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 March 2007 – Tokai Europe v Commission

(Case T‑183/04)

Actions for annulment – Common Customs Tariff – Classification in the combined nomenclature – Person not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 48-49, 51, 60)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21).

Operative part

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2005 − Selmani v Council and Commission

(Case T-299/04)

Common foreign and security policy – Common positions from the Council – Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism – Action for annulment – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – Time-limits – Admissibility

1. European Union – Common foreign and security policy – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Measures adopted under Title V of the Treaty on European Union – Condition – Action based on failure to observe the powers of the Community (Art. 46 EU) (see paras 54-56)

2. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Action brought against Community acts intended to implement the measures laid down under a common position based on Title V of the Treaty on European Union – Included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 58)

3. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Decision replacing the contested decision adopted while the proceedings are under way – Amendment of the original forms of order sought and pleas in law – No effect as regards the decision as to the admissibility of the action (see paras 68-70)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of, first, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70) and, secondly, Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28) and all decisions adopted by the Council on the basis of Regulation No 2580/2001 and having the same effect as Decision 2004/306, in so far as those measures apply to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 June 2009 – Poland v Commission

(Case T-258/04)

Action for annulment – Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States – Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector – Time-limit for bringing an action – Point from which time starts to run – Lateness – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Action against a regulation adopted pursuant to the 2003 Act of Accession by a State signatory to that Act not yet having the capacity of Member State – No effect – Time-limit applicable in its capacity as a legal person (Art. 230, fourth and fifth paras, EC; Act of Accession of 2003) (see paras 40-71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.