ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Action for damages - Failure by the Commission to perform its obligations towards successful tenderers for the supply of products as food aid - Contractual basis - Arbitration clause - None - No jurisdiction on the part of the Community judicature

(EC Treaty, Arts 178, 181 and 183)

Summary

In the context of a dispute between the Commission and the successful tenderer for a supply of food aid to non-member countries, a claim for damages against the Commission, on the ground that it failed in its duty to ensure that the goods were collected by the carrier designated by it within the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation and agreed upon between the successful tenderer and the Commission, is brought on the basis of a contract. Supplies of food aid are made on the basis of contracts entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers, so that any liability which the Community could incur as a result of the organization of the supplies in question is also of a contractual nature.

Consequently, in the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance clearly lacks jurisdiction to rule on what is in fact an action for compensation arising out of a contract, when an action for damages based on Article 178 of the Treaty is brought before it. Otherwise, it would be extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of which it may take cognizance, since that article specifically gives the national courts ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998. - Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Health policy - Protective measures - Decision 95/119/EC - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Statement of reasons - Misuse of powers. - Case T-136/95.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-03301



Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Approximation of laws concerning health policy - Veterinary inspections on products from third countries - Total prohibition on imports of consignments of fishery products originating in Japan - Breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment - Inadequate statement of reasons - Misuse of powers - None

(Commission Decision 95/119)

Summary

In so far as Commission Decision 95/119 concerning certain protective measures with regard to fishery products originating in Japan imposed a total ban on imports of consignments of such products, following a finding by Commission experts of serious shortcomings relating to hygiene and control in their production and storage conditions, it does not infringe the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equal treatment; nor is it tainted by an inadequate statement of reasons or by misuse of powers.

As regards specifically the principle of legal certainty, the decision did not have retroactive effect because it did not relate to imports made into the Community before it came into force. The fact that the decision also applied to goods en route to the Community at the time of its publication, and which it therefore actually affected, does not alter the fact that it took immediate effect, that is to say, it applied to all goods imported from the day on which it was published.

As regards the principle of proportionality, the Commission was not bound to provide for a special regime for traders with goods en route to the Community, since there is already provision for veterinary inspections on importation - less effective and less reliable - where health and hygiene requirements have been satisfied from the start and, secondly, since the importance of the objective pursued, namely the protection of public health, may justify restrictions which have adverse consequences for certain traders. Moreover, since the measure taken was not more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, and the Commission based its decision on reliable conclusions reached by experts, the decision does not breach the applicable provisions of the GATT.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 24 January 1997. - European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union. - Anti-dumping duties - Application for derogation from rules on languages. - Case T-121/95.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00087



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Rules on languages - Derogations - Requirements

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 35(2))

Summary

Under Article 35(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance may, at the request of a party, authorize a language other than the language of the case to be used for all or part of the proceedings. However, a request for leave to derogate from the rule requiring exclusive use of the language of the case must be accompanied by a sufficiently detailed and specific statement of reasons, especially where it emanates from the applicant.

A request made by the applicant for leave to plead at the hearing in a language other than the language of the case on the sole ground that that language is not the mother tongue of its counsel does not satisfy that requirement to provide reasons for the request where it has not been shown that this factor was unforeseeable when the application was lodged and hence when the language of the case was chosen.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Application for an order directing the Commission to require a Member State to modify the conditions for the grant of aid - Dismissal

(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93(2) and (3), and 186)

Summary

An application for interim measures seeking an order directing the Commission to require a Member State to extend to the applicant undertaking a duty-free scheme which, although not notified in advance by the Member State concerned, is being dealt with in a procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty, can only be dismissed since the measure sought is clearly beyond the powers conferred upon the Commission in relation to the administrative procedure provided for by Article 93(2) and is therefore contrary to the Community rules governing State aid. When, in such a procedure, the Commission finds that aid has been introduced without being notified to it in advance, as Article 93(3) of the Treaty requires, the only interim measure it can take is to direct the Member State concerned to suspend payment of the aid immediately and to provide it, within a period of time determined by it, with all the documents, information and data necessary for examining whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

Moreover, the Court must dismiss an application for the adoption of an interim measure which would have the same content and the same effects as the measure which, according to the applicant, the Commission has failed to adopt. It would not be consistent with the principles governing the distribution of powers between the various Community institutions, as intended by the authors of the Treaty, for the Community judicature to be able to require the Commission to accede to the request for interim measures submitted to it.

Similarly, since the measure sought would require the Court to assume the role of the Commission in assessing the alleged aid and judging whether it may need to be extended to the applicant before the Commission has taken any decision in the matter, the Court would not be addressing the measure sought to the Commission but to the Member State concerned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Letter forming part of the first stage of the procedure laid down in Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/810 - Preparatory act

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Decision 94/810, Art. 5)

2 Procedure - Action contesting a preparatory act - Adoption of a later measure - New fact permitting the form of order sought to be adjusted - No such fact

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

3 Any measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 for a declaration that it is void. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in principle a measure is actionable only if it definitively lays down the institution's position on the conclusion of that procedure, and is not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision.

No action lies against letters informing the applicant - in the context of the procedure laid down by Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/810 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in competition procedures before the Commission - that the Commission does not share its point of view regarding the information which it maintains is protected by business secrecy and that the Commission is ready to communicate to the complainants more information than the applicant wishes, and allowing the applicant time in which to submit its comments to the hearing officer.

4 Pursuant to Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, an applicant must state the subject-matter of the dispute in the application and cannot seek new forms of order during the proceedings, thereby altering the subject-matter of the action. Where the initial application is directed against an interim step, it is inadmissible, by adjusting the form of order sought, to seek annulment of a final decision which has been adopted subsequently, that is, after the action was brought.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation concerning the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure provided for in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 - Action brought by producers of `tourons' - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 189, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2081/92; Commission Regulation No 1107/96)

Summary

The action brought by `touron' producers established in France for annulment of Regulation No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical indications and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92 in so far as it registers the names `Jijona' and `Turrón de Alicante' as protected geographical indications, is inadmissible.

Regulation No 1107/96 is, by nature and by virtue of its sphere of application, of a legislative nature and does not constitute a decision within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, since it applies to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract, in conferring on any undertaking whose products fulfil the prescribed geographical and qualitative requirements the right to market them under one of the names specified, and in denying that right to any undertaking whose products do not fulfil those conditions.

Although it is conceivable that, in certain circumstances, even a legislative measure applying to traders in general may be of individual concern to particular traders, that is not the position in the present case. The mere fact that the undertakings have used names such as `Jijona' or `Alicante' for the marketing of the `tourons' that they produce is not sufficient to distinguish them in the absence of any other evidence enabling it to be established that such use stems from a similar specific right which they acquired at national or Community level before the adoption of the contested regulation and which has been adversely affected by that regulation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 November 1996. - Syndicat départemental de défense de droit des agriculteurs v Commission of the European Communities. - Refusal by the Commission to initiate an infringement procedure - Action for failure to act - Inadmissibility. - Case T-47/96.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01559



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to respond clearly to grounds put forward in a complaint concerning the applicability of a directive - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, third para.)

2 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to initiate an infringement procedure - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169, 173, fourth para., and 175, third para.)

Summary

3 An action for failure to act brought by a natural or legal person, seeking a declaration by the Court that the Commission failed to respond clearly to the grounds put forward by the applicant in its complaint concerning the applicability of a directive, is inadmissible. A natural or legal person may rely on the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty only in order to seek a declaration that, in infringement of the Treaty, there has been a failure to adopt an act of which that person is a potential addressee. The applicant cannot be regarded as the potential addressee of an act of the Commission concerning the justification of its complaint, since there is no provision in the Treaty or any secondary legislation obliging the Commission to address to an individual an act embodying a finding as to the compatibility of national legislation with Community law. In any event, once the Commission has in fact responded or defined its position in response to a request made by an individual, there is no failure to act within the meaning of Article 175 of the Treaty. The fact that the measure adopted or the position defined by the institution concerned does not satisfy the applicant is of no relevance in that regard since Article 175 refers to failure to act in the sense of failing to take a decision or to define a position, and not that of adopting a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the applicant.

4 An action for failure to act brought by a natural or legal person, seeking a declaration that, by not addressing a reasoned opinion to a Member State, the Commission, in infringement of the Treaty, failed to act, is inadmissible.

The Commission is not bound to initiate an infringement procedure against a Member State; on the contrary, it has a discretionary power of assessment, which rules out any right for individuals to require it to adopt a particular position.

Moreover, in the context of the infringement procedure laid down by Article 169 of the Treaty, the only measures which the Commission may have to take are addressed to the Member States, so that, not being a potential addressee of such a measure, a natural or legal person may not rely on the third paragraph of Article 175.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 15 May 1997. - Georges Berthu v Commission of the European Communities. - Economic and monetary policy - Commission proposal - Action for annulment - Replacement of the term "ECU" provided for in Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the term "euro" - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-175/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00811



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Proposals for a regulation - Preparatory acts

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., and 235)

Summary

Any measure the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for a declaration that it is void. In the particular case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, that condition is satisfied in principle only if it is a measure definitively laying down the position of the institution concerned on the conclusion of that procedure.

It follows that a preliminary or purely preparatory measure, such as a proposal for a regulation submitted by the Commission to the Council under the procedure described in Article 235 of the Treaty, may not form the subject of any action for its annulment.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 July 1997. - Oleifici Italiani SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia - Damage alleged by the successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the Commission - Action for annulment of the Commission's refusal to grant compensation - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Contractual origin of the Commission's obligation on which the action to establish liability is based - Absence of any arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty - Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance. - Case T-44/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01331



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Action for damages and for annulment of a refusal to pay compensation - Failure by the Commission to perform its obligations towards successful tenderers for the supply of products as food aid - Contractual basis - Arbitration clause - None - No jurisdiction on the part of the Community judicature

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, 178, 181 and 183)

Summary

In the context of a dispute between the Commission and the successful tenderer for a supply of food aid to non-member countries, a claim for damages against the Commission, on the ground that it failed in its duty to ensure that the goods were collected by the carrier designated by it within the time-limit laid down in the Community legislation and agreed upon between the successful tenderer and the Commission, is brought on the basis of a contract. Supplies of food aid are made on the basis of contracts entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers, so that any liability which the Community could incur as a result of the organization of the supplies in question is also of a contractual nature.

Consequently, in the absence of an arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the Treaty, the Court of First Instance clearly lacks jurisdiction to rule on what is in fact an action for compensation arising out of a contract, when an action for damages based on Article 178 of the Treaty is brought before it. Otherwise, it would be extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 183 of the Treaty on the disputes of which it may take cognizance, since that article specifically gives the national courts ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the Community is a party.

To the extent that the application also seeks annulment of the Commission's refusal to compensate the successful tenderer for the damage it claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to perform the same obligation as that on which the claim for damages is based, it is also clearly inadmissible. A party entering into a contract with the Commission cannot unilaterally circumvent the division of jurisdiction as between the Court of First Instance and the national courts by causing the Commission to reject its request for compensation and then describing that rejection as a decision within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Meaning - Damage of a strictly financial nature

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

Summary

It is necessary to assess urgency - which, pursuant to Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure, is a necessary condition for the suspension of operation of a measure or for other interim measures - by examining whether, pending the Court's decision on the substance, the applicant could suffer serious and irreversible harm which cannot be made good by the judgment in the main proceedings. However, damage of a purely financial nature cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation. However, damage can be considered irreparable when the undertaking's position on the market is at risk, in that the possible loss of the market cannot be made good even by receipt of financial compensation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Council regulation concerning aid to certain shipyards under restructuring - Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State by virtue of the fact that a shipyard named in the regulation is located in its territory - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, second and fourth paras; Council Regulation No 1013/97)

Summary

Notwithstanding the fact that a particular shipyard is named in Regulation No 1013/97, by which the Council empowers the Commission to adopt decisions addressed to the governments of particular Member States authorising, subject to certain conditions, the payment of new aid to certain shipyards situated in their respective territories, the regional authority on whose territory that shipyard is located lacks locus standi to contest the regulation.

The regional authority cannot rely on the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty since it is manifestly clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that the concept of Member State, within the meaning of the provisions relating to remedies, only applies to the government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot be extended to regional governments or self-governing communities, regardless of the extent of their powers.

Although such an authority possesses the required legal personality to bring an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, any general interest that it may have, as a third person, in obtaining a result which will favour the economic prosperity of a given business and, as a result, the level of employment in the geographical region where it carries on its activities, is insufficient on its own to enable that authority to be regarded as individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by the provisions of the contested Regulation.

Nor is such an authority directly concerned by the contested Regulation since the simple fact of adopting that measure cannot alone entail the consequences for employment in the region and the socio-economic repercussions which it alleges. The creation of such consequences necessarily supposes, first, the adoption of a decision by the Commission authorising the payment of aid on condition that no ship conversions are undertaken in the shipyard located in the region in question and, secondly, the adoption by that shipyard of autonomous measures connected with that decision, namely making employees redundant.