ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/46

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-770/14) (1)

((ERDF - Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013 - Failure to comply with the deadlines - Automatic decommitment - Proportionality - Principle of cooperation - Principle of partnership - Force majeure - Obligation to state reasons - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 335/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and D. Recchia, Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission note Ares (2014) 2975571 of 11 September 2014, by which the Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of a part of the resources relating to European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013, and, secondly, that the General Court declare the expenditure relating to the ImaGenX, Simit and PIM Energethica projects eligible for financing.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/39

Order of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM)

(Case T-805/14) (1)

((European Union trade mark - Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 260/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stagecoach Group plc (Perth, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Jacobs, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1894/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MEGABUS.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. Stagecoach Group plc shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . INVESTMENTS - INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMMES - OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - ABSENCE OF STATEMENT OF REASONS - LEGAL NON-EXISTENCE OF OPINION

2 . INVESTMENTS - INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMMES - OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - STATEMENT OF REASONS - REFERENCE INSTEAD OF STATEMENT OF REASONS

3 . INVESTMENTS - INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMMES - OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - TIME-LIMIT FOR DELIVERY

4 . INVESTMENTS - INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMMES - OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - DELIVERY OUT OF TIME

5 . PROCEDURE - OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - OPINION AMOUNTING TO A DECISION - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - ADMISSIBILITY

6 . OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - LEGAL NATURE

Summary

UNDER THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 54 OF THE TREATY THE DELIVERY OF AN OPINION ON INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES IS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS . AMONG THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE TREATY, SOME ARE MERELY FORMAL REQUIREMENTS; HOWEVER, THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IS AN ESSENTIAL, INDEED CONSTITUENT, PART OF THE OPINION . THE ABSENCE OF A STATEMENT OF REASONS MEANS THAT THE OPINION IS LEGALLY NON-EXISTENT .

( TREATY, ARTICLES 5, 15 AND FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 54 )

2 . REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL RULES PREVIOUSLY LAID DOWN AND A DECLARATION THAT THEY APPLY TO THE CASE IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE OPINION .

( TREATY, ARTICLES 5, 15 AND FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 54 )

3 . ARTICLE 4 OF DECISION NO 27/55 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF 20 JULY 1955 PROVIDES A TIME - LIMIT ONLY FOR THE SUBMISSION OF INVESTMENT PROPOSALS . THE PRINCIPLES OF SOUND ADMINISTRATION REQUIRE THE OPINION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO BE DELIVERED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, NAMELY, BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE THREE MONTHS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 4 OF DECISION NO 27/55 . A TIME-LIMIT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAY NOT BE DISREGARDED .

( TREATY, THIRD AND FOURTH PARAGRAPHS OF ARTICLE 54; DECISION NO 27/55 OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY, ARTICLE 4 )

4 . DELIVERY OF AN OPINION OUT OF TIME DOES NOT AFFECT THE NATURE OF THE ACT .

( TREATY, FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 54 )

5 . ONLY ACTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WHICH, REGARDLESS OF THEIR FORM, CONSTITUTE DECISIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE TREATY MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT . AN OPINION CONSTITUTES A DISGUISED DECISION WHEN IT LAYS DOWN A RULE CAPABLE OF BEING APPLIED, NAMELY, WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY DETERMINES UNEQUIVOCALLY THE POSITION WHICH IT DECIDES TO ADOPT IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED .

6 . AN OPINION CANNOT INVOLVE THE PERSON TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED IN ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION; IT IS A MEASURE BY MEANS OF WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY EXERCISES ITS FUNCTION OF GIVING GUIDANCE AND CONSTITUTES ADVICE GIVEN TO UNDERTAKINGS . AN OPINION DOES NOT AFFECT THE FREEDOM OF DECISION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF UNDERTAKINGS ANY MORE THAN THOSE OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW SUBMISSIONS

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - TIME-LIMIT FOR INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS - NEW DECISION RE-ESTABLISHING A PREVIOUS SCHEME

3 . MISUSE OF POWERS - SUBSTITUTION OF OBJECTIVE

4 . FERROUS SCRAP - EQUALIZATION - UNIFORM RATE FOR THE SAKE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLICITY - MISUSE OF POWERS

Summary

1 . A DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW SUBMISSIONS IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF CERTAIN NEW ARGUMENTS .

THERE IS NOTHING TO PREVENT THE COURT FROM CONSIDERING NEW ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN SUPPORT OF SUBMISSIONS ALREADY MADE IN THE APPLICATION

( TREATY, ARTICLE 33; PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT, ARTICLE 22 ).

2 . A NEW DECISION MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION EVEN IN RESPECT OF THOSE OF ITS PROVISIONS WHICH ARE INCORPORATED FROM AN EARLIER DECISION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN IMPUGNED WITHIN THE PERIOD LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 33 OF THE TREATY

( TREATY, ARTICLE 33, THIRD PARAGRAPH ).

3 . THE LEGALITY OF A DECISION CANNOT DEPEND ON ITS CONFORMITY OR OTHERWISE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A MEMORANDUM PUBLISHED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY BUT ONLY ON ITS CONFORMITY OR OTHERWISE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY . IN ORDER TO PROVE A MISUSE OF POWERS, THE CONTESTED DECISION MUST BE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PURSUING AN OBJECTIVE OTHER THAN THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY WAS ENTITLED TO ACT

( TREATY, ARTICLE 33 ).

4 . SINCE THE UNIFORM EQUALIZATION RATE WAS HELD TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, THE CONTESTED DECISIONS WOULD STILL BE IN ORDER EVEN IF IT WERE PROVED THAT THIS UNIFORMITY WAS ALSO SELECTED OUT OF CONCERN TO AVOID ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLICATIONS

( TREATY, ARTICLES 33 AND 53 ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FUNDAMENTAL AND PERSISTENT DISTURBANCES - ACTION BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - CONCEPT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 37 )

2 . TRANSPORT - PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION - CONCEPT OF COMPARABILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 70 )

3 . TRANSPORT - SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS - CRITERIA

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 70 )

4 . TRANSPORT - SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS - ADVERSE EFFECT - ABSENCE - AUTHORIZATION NOT JUSTIFIED

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 2, 3, 70 )

5 . TRANSPORT - SPECIAL INTERNAL RATES AND CONDITIONS - EXCEPTIONAL NATURE - CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING APPROVAL

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 70 )

Summary

1 . ACTION ON THE PART OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 37 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS REFERRING ONLY TO AN ACTION WHICH HAS ALREADY OCCURRED AND NOT A DECISION WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS THE AS YET UNRESOLVED INTENTION OF ADOPTING .

2 . CF . SUMMARY OF JOINED CASES 3 TO 18, 25 AND 26/58, N . 2 .

THE CASE OF DISCRIMINATION COVERED BY THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO CONDITIONS OF TRANSPORT AND THEREFORE TO THE COMPARABILITY OF DIFFERENT ROUTES AND LOCATIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRANSPORT .

*/ 658J0003 /*.

3 . SPECIAL RATES AND CONDITIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 ARE NOT ONLY THOSE ADOPTED IN THE INTEREST OF UNDERTAKINGS, BUT ALSO THOSE WHICH ARE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THEM . THEREFORE EVEN REASONS FOR THEIR ADOPTION WHICH ARE ENTIRELY FOREIGN TO THE INTERESTS OF AN UNDERTAKING RECEIVING AN ADVANTAGE CANNOT EXCLUDE OR RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROVISION .

4 . CF . SUMMARY OF JOINED CASES 3 TO 18, 25 AND 26/58, N . 5 .

THE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE PROFITABILITY OF AN UNDERTAKING OF THE LACK OF SPECIAL RATES AND CONDITIONS DOES NOT RENDER THOSE RATES AND CONDITIONS CONSONANT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY AND THEREFORE DOES NOT, IN CASES WHERE THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 70 APPLIES, PUT THE HIGH AUTHORITY UNDER AN OBLIGATION BASED ON ARTICLES 2 AND 3 .

*/ 658J0003 /*.

5 . CF . SUMMARY OF JOINED CASES 3 TO 18, 25 AND 26/58, N . 6 .

A PROTECTIVE RATE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES, NOTABLY WHERE THE UNDERTAKING RECEIVING ASSISTANCE IS EXPERIENCING DISADVANTAGES CREATED BY FACTORS OTHER THAN THOSE OF AN ECONOMIC NATURE; SUCH A RATE IS LEGITIMATE ONLY IN SO FAR AS IT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE UNDERTAKING TO ADAPT ITSELF TO NEW CONDITIONS OR TO SURVIVE AN ACCIDENTAL DISADVANTAGE .

*/ 658J0003 /*.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

PROCEDURE - ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT - AMENDMENT OF LEGAL BASIS OF AN APPLICATION - INADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 35 )

Summary

WHEN THE MATTER WAS RAISED WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 35 IT WAS ASKED TO TAKE A DECISION CONCERNING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST ON THE BASIS OF A SPECIFIC LEGAL GROUND . SINCE THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL WAS TAKEN WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CLAIM AND OF THE LEGAL GROUND PLEADED, AN ACTION BROUGHT AGAINST THE IMPLIED DECISION OF REFUSAL WHICH PUTS FORWARD A DIFFERENT CLAIM BASED ON A DIFFERENT GROUND IS INADMISSIBLE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - LEGAL NATURE OF THE GROUNDS - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 14 AND 15 )

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - LEGAL EFFECTS - ADMISSIBILITY

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 14 )

3 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 78 )

4 . COSTS - COSTS CAUSED UNREASONABLY

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 69 )

Summary

1 . THE GROUNDS OF A DECISION LIMITED TO STRESSING THE OBJECTIVES TO BE ATTAINED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TREATY BUT EXPRESSLY REFRAINING FROM LAYING DOWN PRECISE RULES WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE SETTLED IN THE FUTURE, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A DECISION BUT SIMPLY A NOTICE NOT BINDING THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE FUTURE AND NOT EXCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS CHANGING ITS VIEW .

2 . WHERE A DECISION CONTAINS NO PROVISIONS HAVING LEGAL EFFECTS OF A LEGISLATIVE OR INDIVIDUAL NATURE BUT IS SIMPLY AN INTERNAL MEASURE TAKEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY, THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED .

3 . THE CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN 'REVOKED WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT' BUT SIMPLY 'REVOKED' ARE VALID IN RESPECT OF THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE DECISION AND ITS REVOCATION; THEY HAVE NOT 'LOST THEIR PURPOSE'; BUT IF THE APPLICANT SUBSEQUENTLY STATES TO THE COURT THAT HE CONSIDERS THEM TO HAVE DONE SO, THIS STATEMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF A WITHDRAWAL OF CLAIM .

4 . IF THE WORDING OF THE GROUNDS OF A DECISION WRONGLY GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT A DEFINITE VIEW HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN AND ACCORDINGLY THAT THERE IS A TRUE DECISION JUSTIFYING AN ACTION BEING BROUGHT AND UNREASONABLY CAUSING COSTS TO BE INCURRED, THE COSTS ARE TO BE BORNE IN PART BY THE DEFENDANT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PRELIMINARY RULING - NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OF LAST INSTANCE - DUTY TO BRING MATTER BEFORE THE COURT - EXTINCTION IN CASE OF A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION ALREADY DECIDED BY THE COURT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 )

2 . PRELIMINARY RULING - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT AND OF NATIONAL COURTS

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 ) 3 . PROCEDURE - PRELIMINARY RULING - QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION ALREADY DECIDED BY THE COURT - FRESH REFERENCE - ADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177; STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 20 )

Summary

1 . THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED BY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY UPON NATIONAL COURTS OR TRIBUNALS OF LAST INSTANCE MAY BE DEPRIVED OF ITS PURPOSE BY REASON OF THE AUTHORITY OF AN INTERPRETATION ALREADY GIVEN BY THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE QUESTION RAISED IS MATERIALLY IDENTICAL WITH A QUESTION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A PRELIMINARY RULING IN A SIMILAR CASE . 2 . WHEN GIVING A RULING WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ARTICLE 177, THE COURT LIMITS ITSELF TO DEDUCING THE MEANING OF COMMUNITY RULES FROM THE WORDING AND THE SPIRIT OF THE TREATY, IT BEING LEFT TO THE NATIONAL COURT TO APPLY IN THE PARTICULAR CASE THE RULES WHICH ARE THUS INTERPRETED .

3 . ARTICLE 177 ALWAYS ALLOWS A NATIONAL COURT OR TRIBUNAL, IF IT CONSIDERS IT APPROPRIATE, TO REFER QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION TO THE COURT AGAIN EVEN IF THEY HAVE ALREADY FORMED THE SUBJECT OF A PRELIMINARY RULING IN A SIMILAR CASE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . TRANSITIONAL PERIOD - PROTECTIVE MEASURES - MANNER OF IMPLEMENTATION - LEAST DISTURBANCE - CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION OF MEASURES SOUGHT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 226 )

2 . TRANSITIONAL PERIOD - PROTECTIVE MEASURES - SERIOUS DIFFICULTIES - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 226 )

3 . CUSTOMS DUTIES - ELIMINATION - PROHIBITION AGAINST INTRODUCTION OF NEW DUTIES - PROTECTIVE MEASURES UNDER ARTICLE 226 - CLEARLY STIPULATED EXCEPTION TO THIS PROHIBITION

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTES AN EXCEPTIONAL PROVISION ONLY AS REGARDS THE NATURE AND THE EXTENT OF DEROGATION FROM THE TREATY AND NOT AS REGARDS THE DETAILED RULES LAID DOWN BY THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE PROTECTION SOUGHT . IN THIS RESPECT, THE COMMISSION, WHICH IS BOUND TO GIVE PRIORITY TO SUCH MEASURES AS WILL LEAST DISTURB THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET, MUST USE THE MEANS WHICH ARE LEAST LIKELY TO HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE STATE, A SECTOR OF WHOSE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS AFFECTED BY THE MEASURES AUTHORIZED .

WITH THIS IN VIEW, THE AUTHORIZATION GRANTED TO THE STATE APPLYING TO TAKE THE PROTECTIVE MEASURES MAY BE MADE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, THAT THE STATE, A SECTOR OF WHOSE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IS AFFECTED BY THESE MEASURES, DOES NOT ITSELF PREFER TO APPLY THEM .

CF . JUDGMENT IN CASE 13/63, PARAGRAPH 4 OF SUMMARY, ( 1964 ) ECR 165 .

2 . ARTICLE 226 EMPLOYS THE TERM ' DIFFICULTIES ' WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER THE DIFFICULTIES ARE CAUSED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE TREATY OR OTHERWISE .

3 . ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTES A CLEARLY STIPULATED EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW CUSTOMS DUTIES .

CF . JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 2 AND 3/63, PARAGRAPH 3 OF SUMMARY, ( 1962 ) ECR 817 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . AGREEMENTS - AUTHORIZATION - REASONS THEREFORE

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 65 )

2 . AGREEMENTS - AUTHORIZATION - CONSIDERATION OF CONFORMITY OF SUCH AGREEMENTS WITH THE ECSC TREATY - CRITERIA

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 65 )

3 . AGREEMENTS - CONDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION - CONCEPT AND LIMITS

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 65 )

4 . COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS - ABSENCE OF POWER TO TAKE DECISIONS

5 . AGREEMENTS - AUTHORIZATION - SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENTS TO BE AUTHORIZED AS A CRITERION ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 65 )

Summary

1 . IN THE AUTHORIZATION OF AGREEMENTS, THE REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DECISIONS MUST ENABLE THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED TO BE ASSESSED HAVING REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TREATY . TO THIS END, IT IS SUFFICIENT THAT THE AUTHORIZATION DECISIONS SET OUT THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE AGREEMENTS TO WHICH THEY REFER .

2 . THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S CONSIDERATION WITH REGARD TO THE CONFORMITY OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ECSC TREATY WHICH IS NECESSARY BEFORE ANY AUTHORIZATION BE MADE, CONSISTS ABOVE ALL OF A COMPARISON OF THE CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE AUTHORIZED OBJECTIVES . IN THIS RESPECT, THE SIGNIFICANCE AND SCOPE OF THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT MAY BE DETERMINED, NOT BY CONSIDERING EACH CLAUSE IN ISOLATION, BUT BY A GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF THE AGREEMENT AS A WHOLE, SINCE THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS NOT OBLIGED TO GIVE THE REASONS FOR WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) ARE NOT INFRINGED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL CLAUSE .

3 . THE HIGH AUTHORITY CANNOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT IF IT FINDS THAT, AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE PARTIES CONCERNED, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT AGREEMENT ARE NOT PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 65 . IN GRANTING SUCH AN AUTHORIZATION THE HIGH AUTHORITY MAY IMPOSE ANY CONDITIONS WHICH IT CONSIDERS NECESSARY HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED, IN ORDER TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) FOR THE WHOLE PERIOD OF THE AUTHORIZATION . HERE THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE SUPERVISION IN THE FORM OF SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENTS AND AUTHORIZATIONS, WHICH MAY, IF NECESSARY, TAKE THE FORM OF THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES AS A PRELIMINARY TO CERTAIN MEASURES AMENDING THE CONTENT OF THE AGREEMENTS AUTHORIZED . THE LIMITS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY'S POWER ARE TO BE FOUND BOTH IN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT MUST BE EXERCISED AND IN THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY .

4 . THE DEPARTMENTS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY HAVE NO SEPARATE CAPACITY AND MAY ONLY ACT UNDER ITS RESPONSIBILITY .

5 . THE SCOPE OF AN AGREEMENT ONLY ACQUIRES SIGNIFICANCE IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 65 ( 2 ) IF IT IS CONSIDERED BOTH IN RELATION TO THE SIZE OF THE MARKET AND TO THE SIZE OF THOSE ECONOMIC BODIES OPERATING IN THIS MARKET WHICH ARE THE ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL COMPETITORS OF THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - LEVIES - SURCHARGES FOR DELAY - NATURE - PECUNIARY SANCTION OR PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENT

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLES 36, 50(3 ))

2 . FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - LEVIES - RULES GOVERNING MODE OF ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION - STRICT INTERPRETATION

( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 50(2 ))

3 . OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPH THREE OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY - RESTRICTION OF ITS APPLICATION TO GENERAL DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - INDIVIDUAL DECISION - EXPIRATION OF THE TIME-LIMIT FOR APPEALS

4 . OBJECTION OF ILLEGALITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE ECSC TREATY - DIRECT LEGAL CONNEXION BETWEEN THE CONTESTED MEASURE AND THE GENERAL MEASURE IMPUGNED

Summary

1 . SURCHARGES FOR DELAY IN PAYING LEVIES PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 50(3 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY REPRESENTS PECUNIARY SANCTIONS OR PERIODIC PENALTY PAYMENTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY .

2 . THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 50(2 ) OF THE ECSC TREATY RELATE ONLY TO THE MODE OF ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF LEVIES AND NOT TO THE SURCHARGES FOR DELAY FOR WHICH PARAGRAPH ( 3 ) OF THIS ARTICLE PROVIDES . AS THIS ARTICLE LAYS DOWN THE ESSENTIAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VALIDITY OF DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IN THE MATTER OF LEVIES ITS APPLICATION AND SCOPE CANNOT BE EXTENDED BY WAY OF INTERPRETATION TO CASES NOT PROVIDED FOR BY THE TREATY .

3 . CF . PARA . 4 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 3/59, ( 1960 ) ECR 53 .

THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN CASE 9/56 DID NOT INTERPRET THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 36 AS MEANING THAT APPLICANTS MAY CONTEST NOT ONLY THE LEGALITY OF GENERAL DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT ALSO THE LEGALITY OF DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED TO THEM AND WHICH THEY ARE ALLEGED NOT TO HAVE OBSERVED . IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW, CONFIRMED BY THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 33, THAT THE LEGALITY OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS CAN NO LONGER BE CALLED IN QUESTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD .

*/ 659J0003 /*.

4 . A PLEA THAT GENERAL DECISIONS ARE ILLEGAL CAN ONLY BE SUBMITTED IN SO FAR AS THERE IS A DIRECT LEGAL CONNEXION BETWEEN THEM AND THE CONTESTED INDIVIDUAL MEASURE .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

MEASURES ADOPTED BY A COMMUNITY INSTITUTION - PROCEEDINGS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON - DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

CF . PARA . 4 OF SUMMARY IN CASE 25/62 .

Summary

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

A DECISION OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SCOPE AND EFFECT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO AN UNDERTAKING, EVEN IF THE LATTER OCCUPIES, A SPECIAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT IN THE MARKET OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

COSTS - COSTS UNREASONABLY CAUSED TO BE INCURRED

( RULES OF PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 69(3 ))

Summary

IF AN APPLICANT HAS BEEN MISLED AND INDUCED TO MAKE HIS APPLICATION BY REASON OF THE AMBIGUOUS DRAFTING OF A MEASURE BY AN INSTITUTION THEN HE HAS BEEN UNREASONABLY CAUSED TO INCUR HIS COSTS WHICH MUST BE BORNE BY THE ADMINISTRATION .

CF . PARA . 4, SUMMARY, IN CASE 14/63, ( 1963 ) ECR 723; PARA . 4, SUMMARY, IN CASES 16/59, 17/59 AND 18/50, ( 1960 ) ECR 49 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - APPLICATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS AGAINST A DECISION ADDRESSED TO ANOTHER PERSON - DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM - CONCEPT

( EEC TREATY, SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 )

Summary

CF . SUMMARY IN CASE 1/64, ( 1964 ) ECR 413 .

PERSONS OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM A DECISION IS ADDRESSED MAY ONLY CLAIM TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED IF THAT DECISION AFFECTS THEM BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THEM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THEY ARE DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS, AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS DISTINGUISHES THEM INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .

A DECISION OF GENERAL ECONOMIC SCOPE AND EFFECT WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET CANNOT BE OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO AN UNDERTAKING, EVEN IF THE LATTER OCCUPIES A SPECIAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE RELEVANT PRODUCT IN THE MARKET OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES .

*/ 664J0001 /*.