ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 17 December 1986. - Mohamed Belkacem v Federal Republic of Germany. - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court. - Case 276/86.



European Court reports 1986 Page 03975



Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

PROCEDURE - ACTION BY A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON AGAINST A MEMBER STATE FOR THE ANNULMENT OF DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS - LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

( RULES OF PROCEDURE , ART . 92 ( 1 ))

Parties

IN CASE 276/86

MOHAMED BELKACEM , RESIDING IN BERLIN , GARDES-DU-CORPS-STRASSE 10A , REPRESENTED BY RUPERT MULLER-VOSS , RECHTSANWALT OF BERLIN , KONSTANZER STRASSE 55 ,

APPLICANT ,

V

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ,

DEFENDANT ,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE AMTSGERICHT CHARLOTTENBURG OF 30 APRIL 1986 AND OF THE KAMMERGERICHT BERLIN OF 8 AUGUST 1986 ,

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 27 OCTOBER 1986 AND REGISTERED ON 13 NOVEMBER 1986 , MOHAMED BELKACEM , AN ALGERIAN NATIONAL RESIDING IN BERLIN ( WEST ), BROUGHT AN ACTION AGAINST THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY FOR THE ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE AMTSGERICHT CHARLOTTENBURG OF 30 APRIL 1986 AND OF THE DECISION OF THE KAMMERGERICHT BERLIN OF 8 AUGUST 1986 .

2 THE DECISIONS IN QUESTION WERE GIVEN IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN MR BELKACEM AND HIS WIFE , ALSO AN ALGERIAN NATIONAL , CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN OF THE MARRIAGE . MR BELKACEM CONSIDERS THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NON-DISCRIMINATION AND THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ENSHRINED IN ARTICLES 7 , 48 AND 53 OF THE EEC TREATY .

3 NO PROVISION OF THE TREATY PROVIDES FOR THE POSSIBILITY FOR A NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSON TO BRING AN ACTION AGAINST A MEMBER STATE BEFORE THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR THE ANNULMENT OF DECISIONS OF NATIONAL COURTS .

4 SINCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION , IT IS NECESSARY , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , TO DECLARE THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE EVEN BEFORE IT IS SERVED ON THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS MADE .

5 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS . AS THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS , HE MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT

HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :

( 1 ) THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ;

( 2 ) THE APPLICANT IS ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS GOVERNING ADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSIBILITY OF MAIN APPLICATION - NOT RELEVANT

( EEC TREATY, ARTS . 185 AND 186; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(1 )*)

2 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING SUCH MEASURES - SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE - PRIMA-FACIE CASE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 186; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(2 )*)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT A MEASURE IS VOID - COUNCIL REGULATION IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY - ACTION DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMISSION - INADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ART . 173; COUNCIL REGULATIONS NOS 2176/84 AND 535/87 )

Summary

IN VIEW OF THE ROLE WHICH REGULATION NO 2176/84 ASSIGNS TO THE COMMISSION IN THE PROCEDURE RESULTING IN THE ADOPTION BY THE COUNCIL OF A REGULATION IMPOSING A DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY, AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT SUCH A REGULATION IS VOID CAN BE BROUGHT ONLY AGAINST THE COUNCIL, WHICH ALSO HAS THE POWER OF DECISION IN THE MATTER .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - CONDITIONS OF ADMISSIBILITY - ADMISSIBILITY OF THE MAIN APPLICATION - IRRELEVANT - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY, ARTS 185 AND 186; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(1 )*)

2 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - STAGE OF THE PROCEDURE AT WHICH THE APPLICATION MUST BE LODGED - APPRAISAL BY THE APPLICANT

( EEC TREATY, ART . 185; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(1 )*)

3 . APPLICATION FOR INTERIM MEASURES - SUSPENSION OF THE OPERATION OF DECISIONS - CONDITIONS FOR ADOPTION OF SUCH MEASURES - PRIMA FACIE CASE - SERIOUS AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE

( EEC TREATY, ART . 185; RULES OF PROCEDURE, ART . 83*(2 )*)
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Acts adversely affecting them - Concept - Act which directly and immediately affects the applicant' s legal situation - None - Action inadmissible

( Staff Regulations, Art . 91 ( 1 ) )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Action - Decision of a selection board - Prior administrative complaint - Optional nature - Lodging - Consequences - Period for bringing an action

( Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91 )

Summary

The normal legal remedy against a decision of a selection board is a direct application to the Court but if the person concerned has made a complaint to the appointing authority, the time-limit for bringing an action runs from the day of the express or implied reply to that complaint .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1 . Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Prima-facie case - Serious and irreparable damage

( EEC Treaty, Art . 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 83 ( 2 ) )

2 . Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Fruit and vegetables - Imports from non-member countries - Suspension of the issue of import licences - Taking into account the special situation of products in transit - Change of policy by the Commission - Obligation to respect the legitimate expectation of traders - Need for a clear and precise warning

( Regulation No 2707/72 of the Council, Art . 3 ( 3 ) ( 1 ); Commission Regulations Nos 346/88, 871/88, 962/88, 984/88 and 1040/88 )
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Conditions for grant - Serious and irreparable damage

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

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Financial loss

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for suspension or other interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking such measures . Financial loss is in principle not considered to be serious and irreparable unless, in the event of the applicant' s being successful in the main proceedings, it could not be wholly recouped . That may be so in particular if the damage threatens the very existence of the undertaking in question or where, once it had occurred, it could not be quantified .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Taxation ° Recoverable costs ° Concept ° Elements to be taken into consideration

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

Summary

The Court is not empowered under Article 74 of the Rules of Procedure to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. Under Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure, expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings are to be regarded as recoverable costs; as follows in particular from Article 72 of the Rules, the term "proceedings" refers only to proceedings before the Court and does not include any prior stage.

Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court must 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 lawyers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

Since the Court, when determining the recoverable costs, takes account of all the circumstances of the case until the time of such determination, it is not necessary for it to rule separately on the costs incurred by the parties in connection with the proceedings for the taxation of costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeal - Submissions - Procedural irregularity - Decision on the question whether adjudication upon an objection of inadmissibility should be reserved for final judgment - Discretion of the Court of First Instance - Rejection

2. Officials - Actions - Action brought by a successful candidate in an open competition challenging the decision not to offer him a post - Legal basis - Prior administrative complaint - No such complaint - Action inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 179; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

1. It is for the Court of First Instance to decide whether or not the proper administration of justice justifies immediate adjudication upon an objection of inadmissibility raised by the defendant or postponement of such adjudication until final judgment. A submission challenging the decision taken by the Court of First Instance on this point must therefore be rejected in the examination of an appeal.

2. Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations apply not only to serving officials but also to candidates for a post. Consequently, an action brought by a successful candidate in an open competition contesting the decision not to offer him a post taken by the institution which organized that competition is governed by those two articles requiring the submission of a prior administrative complaint and thus by Article 179 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Conditions as to admissibility - Admissibility of the main application - Lack of relevance - Limits

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(1))

Summary

Although the issue of the admissibility of the main application should not, in principle, be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case, none the less, if the the manifest inadmissibility of the main application is pleaded, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to establish that the main application reveals prima facie grounds for concluding that there is a certain probability that it is admissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Variation ° Condition ° Change in circumstances

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 87)

Summary

Under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice an order granting an interim measure may at any time on application by a party be varied or cancelled on account of a change in circumstances.

The enactment of national legislation with the same effects as the administrative acts the execution of which was ordered to be suspended by the interim measure cannot be considered to be a change in circumstances such as to justify varying or cancelling the interim measure. It cannot retrospectively cure the prima facie incompatibility with Community law of the administrative acts in question. In order to ensure that the forthcoming judgment can be effective, therefore, the interim measure should be continued.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility ° Question put without any particulars of the factual and legislative context

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The need to arrive at an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court requires that that court should define the factual and legislative context of the questions which it refers, or at least explain the assumptions of fact on which those questions are based. Those requirements apply with particular force in the area of competition, which is characterized by complex situations of fact and law.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions of granting ° Urgency ° Measures taken and undertakings given at national level to guarantee maintenance of the status quo ° No urgency

(EEC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2))

Summary

If, in proceedings for interim measures brought by the Commission in the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations, the defendant Member State claims that the application for interim measures should be dismissed on the ground that, in its view, measures taken and undertakings given at national level are sufficient to preserve the status quo, that Member State thereby guarantees that those measures and undertakings will be respected and will not be revoked or varied before the Court has given judgment in the main proceedings.

Where it has not been shown in what respect the interim measures applied for would be such as to afford a significantly greater guarantee that the status quo will be maintained than the measures already taken and undertakings already given at national level, there is no need, given the absence of urgency, to order interim measures.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Main action dismissed as inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(1))

Summary

Where the main action to which an application for interim measures attaches is dismissed as inadmissible, the latter application is itself inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation introducing arrangements for trade in bananas with third countries including a scheme for the allocation of a tariff quota among different categories of traders

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation No 404/93)

2. Actions for damages ° Independent of action for annulment ° Inadmissibility of the action for annulment directed against a regulation ° No effect on the admissibility of an action seeking compensation for the damage caused by the adoption of that regulation

(EEC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second para.)

Summary

1. The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, in so far as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question. In order for a measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed.

A regulation which establishes arrangements for trade in bananas with non-member countries and a mechanism for the allocation of the tariff quota between categories of traders defined according to objective criteria applies to situations which have been determined objectively and has legal effects as regards categories of persons viewed in a general and abstract manner. It is of concern to the applicants only in their objective capacity as traders engaged in the marketing of bananas from third countries in the same way as any other trader in an identical position.

2. The action for damages provided for under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty was introduced as an autonomous form of action, with a particular purpose to fulfill within the system of actions and subject to conditions on its use dictated by its specific purpose, and hence a declaration of inadmissibility of the application for annulment of a regulation does not automatically render inadmissible the action for damage for the harm allegedly caused by the adoption of that regulation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Conditions for admissibility ° Admissibility of the main action ° Inadmissibility of an action for the annulment of the Commission' s decision not to bring an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations ° Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures ° Appeal dismissed

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169, 173, 185 and 186)

Summary

The judge hearing an application for interim measures, whose task it is, if the question of the manifest inadmissibility of the main application is raised, to establish whether the main application discloses prima facie grounds for concluding that there is a certain probability that it is admissible, properly decided to dismiss as inadmissible an application for interim measures made in connection with an action for the annulment of a decision of the Commission not to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations. Accordingly, the appeal against the decision of the judge hearing the application for interim measures is unfounded and must be dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

1. Procedure — Discontinuance by the applicant — Removal from the Register — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 78)

2. Procedure — Costs — Discontinuance not justified by the conduct of the other party — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility ° Request not containing precise questions and not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

(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.

In this respect, the information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only enable the Court to give helpful answers but also enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court.

It is the Court' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference does not contain specific questions addressed to the Court, allow the questions on which the national court wishes the Court to give a preliminary ruling to be discerned with any certainty, or furnish sufficient information to comply with the abovementioned requirements.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mistaken assessment of the facts ° Inadmissibility ° Dismissal

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; Statute of the Court of Justice of the EC, Art. 51, first para.)

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented to the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Dismissal

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

Summary

1. Under Article 168a of the Treaty, an appeal is confined to points of law and this limitation is further embodied in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Thus, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to infringements of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of facts, and is therefore admissible only in so far as the decision of the Court of First Instance is claimed to be incompatible with rules of law the observance of which it had to ensure.

2. It follows from Article 168a of the Treaty, 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, read in combination, that an appeal must indicate precisely which elements of the contested judgment are challenged, and also the legal arguments which specifically support the appeal.

This requirement is not satisfied by pleas in law which are confined to repeating or reproducing word for word the arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, without containing any legal argument in support of the form of order sought in the appeal. In reality, such pleas merely seek to obtain a re-examination of the application and the reply submitted to the Court of First Instance, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.
61995O0046

Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 1997. - Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxemburg. - Removal from the register. - Case C-46/95.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01279
Case C-31/95 P





Sergio Del Plato

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Official – Appeal manifestly inadmissible – Lack of pleas in law)»

Order of the Court (Second Chamber), 14 March 1996

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Officials ° Competitions ° Competition notices ° Purpose

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Annex III, Art. 1(1))

Summary

The basic function of a competition notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible on the conditions of eligibility for the post to be filled, in order to enable them to determine whether they should apply for it.
Order of the Court of 7 July 1998. - Société Béton Express, Société nouvelle de concassage, Société Bourbon Lumière and Société Ouest Concassage v Direction régionale des douanes de la Réunion. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal d'instance de Saint-Denis de la Réunion - France. - Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical question. - Joined cases C-405/96, C-406/96, C-407/96 and C-408/96.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04253



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference relating to a question already settled by the Court - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifestly identical questions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 104(3))
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997. - Roberto Galtieri v European Parliament. - Appeal clearly unfounded. - Case C-150/96 P.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01229



Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Infringement by the Court of First Instance of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations - Appellant's manifestly selective and incorrect understanding of the contested judgment - Appeal clearly unfounded - Appeal dismissed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119; Staff Regulations, Art. 85)

Summary

An appeal based on an alleged infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations must be declared clearly unfounded and dismissed where a straightforward comparison of the contested judgment with the appellant's account of it reveals that his understanding of that judgment is manifestly selective and incorrect.