ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Damage which a Member State may invoke

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

2. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved ° Application by a Member State to be authorized, as far as it is concerned, to defer the implementation of certain mechanisms of a new common organization of the agricultural markets

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(2); Council Regulation No 404/93)

Summary

1. The urgency of an interim measure must be assessed in relation to the necessity to give an interim judgment in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being occasioned by the immediate application of the measure at issue in the main proceedings. As regards the nature of the damage which may be invoked, it must be pointed out that the Member States are responsible for interests, in particular those of an economic and social nature, which are regarded as general interests at national level, and are therefore entitled to defend such interests before the courts. They may therefore invoke damage affecting a whole sector of their economy, in particular when the contested Community measure may entail unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living.

2. An application for interim measures made by a Member State with a view to obtaining, as far as it alone is concerned, a suspension of the implementation of an important part of a new common organization of the market must be rejected where, on the one hand, the materialization of the risk invoked to an entire sector of the national economy depends upon the occurrence of a number of factors which do not appear to be predictable with a sufficient degree of probability and, on the other hand, the said common organization involves mechanisms allowing the Community authorities to react in the event of that risk materializing and where, moreover there is a serious risk of damage to other Member States if the mechanisms envisaged by the common organization were not brought into force in their entirety in the circumstances envisaged.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a decision concerning access by Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Occurrence of damage depending on uncertain future events ° Excluded

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty ° Producer undertaking which did not bring an independent action ° Procedural rights ° Importer undertakings ° Direct and present interest in the result of the case

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Art. 37)

2. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons having an interest ° Case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty ° Application for leave by an undertaking which has failed to set out with sufficient clarity the circumstances establishing its right to intervene ° Rejected

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 93(1), second subpara., indent (f))

Summary

1. Under Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, any person establishing an interest in the result of a case submitted to the Court may intervene in that case before the Court, and submissions made in an application for leave to intervene must be limited to supporting the submissions of one of the parties.

Leave to intervene in a dispute concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty must be granted to an undertaking on which a specific anti-dumping duty has been imposed, since that undertaking is individually and directly concerned by the contested regulation and has in that regard an independent right of action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. However, in so far as that undertaking did not bring an action for annulment against that regulation, its rights as intervener must be confined to supporting the forms of order sought by the party on whose side it seeks to intervene.

Undertakings which import the product and in that connection have to pay a specific anti-dumping duty can also demonstrate a direct and present interest in the result of the case.

2. Under indent (f) of the second subparagraph of Article 93(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, every application for leave to intervene must contain a statement of the reasons establishing the intervener' s right to intervene.

An undertaking which has not established on what grounds it had to or has to pay the above duty has not demonstrated, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, a direct and present interest in the result of a case concerning the validity of a regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Discontinuance justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Case C-286/95 P-DEP

Imperial Chemical Industries plc

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Taxation of costs)

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Definition – Matters to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b))

As Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court must, when called upon to tax expenses, consider all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, 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.

(see para. 17)
Keywords



Keywords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Appraisal by the national courts - Application made by the parties in the main proceedings for revision of a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 41; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 98 to 100)

Summary

Article 177 of the Treaty establishes a procedure for direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, in the course of which the parties concerned are merely invited to submit observations within the legal framework set out by the court making the reference.

Within the limits established by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is thus for the national courts alone to decide on the principle and purpose of any reference to the Court of Justice and it is also for those courts alone to judge whether they have obtained sufficient guidance from the preliminary ruling delivered in response to their reference or whether it appears to them necessary to refer the matter once more to the Court. Accordingly, the parties to the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice or on Articles 98 to 100 of the Rules of Procedure in order to seek revision of rulings delivered in pursuance of Article 177. Only the national court to which such a ruling is addressed may, if appropriate, submit new considerations to the Court which might lead it to give a different answer to a question submitted earlier.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials - Rights and obligations - Acts capable of reflecting on the dignity of office - Serious insults - Disciplinary measure - Judicial review

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 12, first para.)

Summary

An official who utters in public serious insults detrimental to the honour of the persons to whom they refer reflects on the dignity of his office and infringes the first paragraph of Article 12 of the Staff Regulations.

In assessing the lawfulness of a disciplinary measure in the light of that provision, the Court of First Instance is not required to examine whether the conduct in question constitutes defamation as it might be defined in criminal law.
61996O0023

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v French Republic. - Removal from the register. - Case C-23/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01221
Keywords



Keywords

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

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51, para. 1; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea raised for the first time in the appeal — Not admissible

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Rules of Procedure, Art. 119)
Order of the President of the Court of 10 September 1997. - Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrão v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). - Application for interim relief - Suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency. - Case C-248/97 P (R).



European Court reports 1997 Page I-04729



Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Provisional measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable harm - Power of assessment of the judge hearing the application - Cumulative conditions - Consequences in the context of an appeal

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Insufficient statement of reasons - Application as regards orders on applications for interim measures

Summary

3 In the context of the overall examination of an application for suspension of the operation of an act or for other interim measures, the judge hearing the application enjoys a broad discretion and is free to determine, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be assessed.

Consequently, in an appeal against an order dismissing an application for interim measures on the ground that there was no urgency for the measures sought, pleas which relate to the existence of a prima facie case but do not call into question the lack of urgency cannot form grounds for setting the order aside, even partially.

4 The judge hearing an application for interim measures cannot be required to reply explicitly to all the points of fact and law raised in the course of the interlocutory proceedings. It is sufficient that the reasons given validly justify his order in the light of the circumstances of the case and enable the Court of Justice to exercise its powers of review.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) - Meaning - To be determined on the basis of the body's constitution and role - Role of the Corte dei Conti (Italian Court of Auditors), in the context within which reference was made to the Court, consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action - Not a judicial function

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

Summary

$$The question whether a body may refer a question to the Court falls to be determined on the basis of criteria relating both to the constitution of that body and to its function. Thus, a national body may be classified as `a court or tribunal' within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty when it is performing judicial functions, but when exercising other functions - of an administrative nature, for example - it cannot be recognised as such.

It follows that in order to establish whether a national body, entrusted by law with different categories of function, is to be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, it is necessary to determine in what specific capacity it is acting within the particular legal context in which it seeks a ruling from the Court. For the purposes of that analysis, no relevance is to be attributed to the fact that, when otherwise configured, the body concerned falls to be classified as a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty (even the same entity whose status is in issue, when it is exercising powers other than those in the context of which the reference was made).

The Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors) is not performing a judicial function - and cannot therefore make a reference to the Court of Justice - when, in the context in which reference is made, it is exercising its powers of ex post facto review which is an administrative role consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions unaccompanied by sufficient information as to their factual and legislative context - Questions referred in a context where no useful answer is possible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. The information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but must also make it possible for the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, given that, pursuant to that provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties, the fact that the national court refers to the observations submitted by the parties to the main proceedings - which, moreover, are likely to contain differing accounts of the dispute - is not sufficient to safeguard the right of each party under the above provision to submit observations.

Consequently, an order for reference which does not describe the factual background to the dispute, its findings of fact, the national legislative context or the precise reasons for which it is uncertain as to the interpretation of Community law and considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court is manifestly inadmissible in that it makes it impossible for the Court to provide a useful interpretation of Community law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Admissibility - Conditions - Submission of arguments also raised before the Court of First Instance - No effect

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a (now Article 225 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation registering a designation of origin covering a geographical area that is larger than the territory of that name

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para. EC); Council Regulation No 2081/92; Commission Regulation No 123/97)

Summary

1. Under Article 168a of the Treaty (now Article 225 EC), the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the order which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support. If those conditions are satisfied, an appeal may be based on arguments already adduced at first instance, in order to show that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by rejecting the pleas and arguments which the appellant submitted to it, so that the points of law examined at first instance may be discussed again in the course of an appeal, where the appellant challenges the interpretation or application of Community law by the Court of First Instance.

( see paras 53-56, 59-60 )

2. Regulation No 123/97, concerning registration of the name Altenburger Ziegenkäse as a protected designation of origin, which confers on that name the protection which Regulation No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs accords to all duly registered protected designations of origin, constitutes a measure of general application, and hence of a legislative nature, which applies to objectively defined situations and produces legal effects for categories of economic operators who satisfy a number of conditions defined in a general and abstract manner. Even if the persons to whom it applies were identifiable at the time when it was adopted and it were established that their number could in fact scarcely change, its legislative character would not thereby be called into question, as it envisages only objective legal or factual situations.

It follows that Regulation No 123/97 concerns undertakings producing the cheese in the geographical area defined in the specification referred to in Article 4 of Regulation No 2081/92 and marketing it, only in that objective capacity, on the same basis as any other economic operator currently or potentially in the same position. Accordingly, those undertakings are not individually concerned by Regulation No 123/97.

( see paras 66-69 )
61998O0431

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999. - Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal. - Case C-431/98 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-08319
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Implied decision of the Commission refusing to amend Decision 1995/514/EC despite allegedly new evidence communicated by a Member State casting doubt on the correctness of that decision - No such decision - Manifest inadmissibility - Recourse to the procedure for failure to act

(Arts 230 EC and 232 EC)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999. - Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Action for failure to act - Finding of inadmissibility at first instance. - Case C-249/99 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-08333



Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Institution must be called upon to act - Conditions - Request must be clear and precise

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, second para. (now Art. 232, second para., EC))

Summary

$$An action for failure to act is admissible only in so far as the applicant has duly followed the pre-litigation procedure, satisfying the essential procedural requirement of calling upon the institution concerned to act, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 232 EC). Such a request must be expressed with sufficient clarity and precision for the institution to have a clear idea of the content of the decision sought and to realise that the purpose of the request is to compel the institution to state a position. Those conditions are not satisfied in the case of a fax addressed by the applicant to the Commission, which gives no indication to that effect and in no way suggests that it is deemed to constitute a preliminary to legal proceedings, but on the contrary merely asks the Commission for certain information, such as the telephone and fax numbers of the officials and official bodies handling the matter, with whom the applicant - according to its own statements - wishes to make contact.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Acts having legal effects - Designation of a Member State, alongside the undertakings concerned, as addressee of Commission decisions cancelling financial assistance under the EAGGF - Action brought by that State against its designation - Inadmissible

(Ec Treaty, Art. 192 (now Art. 256 EC); Art. 230 EC; Council Regulations No 4253/88, Arts.23 and 24, and No 2082/93)

Summary

$$An action for an annulment brought by a Member State against its designation, alongside the undertakings concerned, as addressee of Commission decisions cancelling financial assistance under the EAGGF must in the case in point be declared manifestly inadmissible.

In order for an act of the Commission to be the subject of an action for annulment, it must be intended to have legal effects even where, in the event that it is a Member State which intends to bring such an action, those effects are not to deploy with regard to the Member State itself. In that regard, the designation of that State in those decisions clearly has no autonomous legal effect.

First, the obligations on that State concerning the enforcement of the decisions in question and appending of enforcement orders derive directly from Article 192 of the Treaty (now Article 256 EC) and those obligations are not affected by the fact that the contested decisions are addressed to that State. Secondly, the decisions do not relate to the question of the possible liability of that State or any obligations which it may have under Articles 23 and 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, which contain rules on financial control and on the reduction, suspension and cancellation of assistance.

( see paras 24-28 )
Case C-77/99 DEP





Commission of the European Communities

v

Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, in liquidation, and Others





«(Taxation of costs)»

Order of the Court (Third Chamber), 4 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Factors to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 74)

2.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Meaning – Factors to be taken into consideration – Necessary expenses relating to the taxation procedure – Included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 69(1) and 74)

1.

2.