ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Acts attributable to the Community — Act of the European Council — Exclusion — Recognition of the Republic of Turkey ' s status as a candidate for accession to the European Union — (Arts 7 EC and 288, second para., EC)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawful conduct of the institutions — Accession partnership of the Republic of Turkey — Admissibility in the light of a resolution of the European Parliament not having binding legal consequences — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Breach — None — Liability not incurred — (Art. 288, second para., EC)

3. Procedure — Costs — Decision given by reasoned order — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Failure to ask for costs — Sharing of costs where the circumstances are exceptional — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 87(2)(3) and 111)

Summary

1. Recognition of the Republic of Turkey ' s status as a candidate for accession to the European Union by the European Council of Helsinki of 10 and 11 December 1999 cannot give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC because it is the result of a measure from the European Council, which is not an institution of the Community within the meaning of Article 7 EC. Only the conduct of an institution of the Community can give rise to such liability.

see para. 17

2. The fact that the Republic of Turkey enjoys a European Union accession partnership cannot give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 288 EC on the ground of alleged unlawful conduct of the Community institutions because the partnership is contrary to the resolution of the European Parliament of 18 June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question. That resolution is a document containing declarations of a purely political nature, which may be amended by the Parliament at any time. It cannot therefore have binding legal consequences for its author nor, a fortiori, for the other Community institutions or give rise to a legitimate expectation that the institutions would comply with that resolution.

see paras 18-20

3. In accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party ' s pleadings. However, under Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, when the Court gives a decision by reasoned order in an action manifestly lacking any foundation in law, but before the defendants have lodged their defence and had the opportunity to apply for costs, it is necessary to apply Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the Court of First Instance may order the costs to be shared where the circumstances are exceptional.

see paras 28-29
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Actionable measures

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 6(1)(c))

Summary

If an undertaking, which obtained annulment by the Court of First Instance of the Commission decision prohibiting it from carrying out a concentration, then sells the undertaking it acquired within the period which the Commission in any event had at its disposal following that judgment within which to adopt a new decision, it cannot claim to be adversely affected either by a Commission decision, after the decision to sell the undertaking, to reopen the phase for detailed examination of the operation pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 4064/89, or by a subsequent decision by the Commission formally to close the procedure as having become devoid of purpose.

(see paras 61, 67, 72-74, 84, 96-97, 101)
Case T-47/03 DEP

Jose Maria Sison

v

Council of the European Union

‛(Procedure — Taxation of costs)’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber), 2 June 2009 II ‐ 1486

Summary of the Order

It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and, secondly, to those which were necessary for that purpose. Neither the travel expenses incurred by a lawyer in order to meet his client in person at the latter’s place of residence, nor those incurred by an applicant in order to be present in person at a hearing before the Court in Luxembourg, without his presence being requested by the Court or necessary by reason of the circumstances, nor the expenses incurred by the lawyer of one of the parties subsequent to the closing of the oral procedure, including those incurred for the purpose of being present in person at the delivery of the Court’s judgment in Luxembourg can, as a rule, be considered necessary for the purposes of the proceedings. (see paras 30, 52)

The Community Courts are not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers, but may determine the amount of those fees to be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Court of First Instance is not obliged to take account of any national scale of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers. In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee-scales, the Court must make an unfettered assessment of 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 proceedings for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings. (see paras 31, 32)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 114-122, 127

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 985/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/1999 on imports of magnesium oxide originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 1)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the Council;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

5 March 2004

Case T-281/03

Xanthippi Liakoura

v

Council of the European Union

(Officials – Staff Report – Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking foundation in law)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for annulment of certain assessments given in the applicant’s staff report for the period 1999-2001.

Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part, and as manifestly lacking foundation in law for the remainder. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials – Actions – Subject-matter – Direction to the administration – Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings – None

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

3. Officials – Reports procedure – Staff report – Discretion of the reporting officers – Judicial review – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

4. Officials – Reports procedure – Institution’s internal instructions on the reporting procedure – Legal effects

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. In the context of judicial review based on Article 91 of the Staff Regulations the Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to issue orders to an institution, with the result that a claim for an institution to be ordered to include a translation in the staff report of an official must be declared inadmissible.

(see para. 22)

See: 192/88 Turner v Commission [1989] ECR 1017; T-19/97 Richter v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I-A-379 and II-1019, para. 60

2. An official has no further legal interest in bringing an action for annulment where, at the time when the action is brought, he has already achieved the objective which prompted him to initiate the pre-litigation procedure.

(see paras 36-38)

3. Assessors have the widest discretion when judging the work of persons upon whom they must report and it is not for the Court to interfere in their assessments save in the case of error or manifest exaggeration. The purpose of the optional comments accompanying the assessments in the analytical grid is to justify those assessments, in order to enable the official to determine whether they are well founded and, where appropriate, to enable the Court to effect its review.

(see paras 40-41)

See: 36/81, 37/81 and 218/81 Seton v Commission [1983] ECR 1789, para. 23; T-212/97 Hubert v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-185, para. 142

4. An institution’s guide to staff reports has the status of an internal instruction which is binding on the institution unless the latter chooses to disregard it by a reasoned and detailed decision.

(see para. 42)

See: 190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20; T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II-19, para. 5; T-23/91 Maurissen v Court of Auditors [1992] ECR II-2377, para. 41 et seq.
Case T-123/03

Pfizer Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Medicinal products for human use – Initiation, under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the procedure under Article 32 of that directive – Application for annulment – Measure against which an action may be brought – Preparatory measure – Inadmissible)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 2 June 2004

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Commission to refer a matter to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products for a reasoned opinion – Measures constituting a preliminary stage in a consultative procedure – Excluded

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/83, Art. 30)

Only measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant’s interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal position are acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, and particularly where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge, and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare for the final decision. It would be otherwise only if the acts or decisions adopted in the course of the preparatory proceedings not only bore all the legal characteristics of measures against which action may be brought, but in addition were themselves the culmination of a special procedure distinct from that intended to permit the institution to take a decision on the substance of the case.

Therefore, the decision of the Commission to refer a matter to the Committee for Proprietary Medical Products under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83 setting out a Community code relating to medicinal products for human use in order to obtain a reasoned opinion, such as that on harmonising the summaries of a product’s characteristics, is not an actionable measure. Such a decision does not definitively determine the position of the institution, any more than it represents the culmination of a special procedure distinct from that intended to result in a decision on that harmonisation. The measure does no more than set in motion a consultative procedure, and merely represents a preliminary stage in that procedure.

(see paras 21-23, 26)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2006 – Nürburgring v Parliament and Council

(Case T-311/03)

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/33/EC – Advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products – Ban on sponsorship of events or activities concerning more than one Member State – Locus standi – Inadmissibility

Applications for interim measures – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/33, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 42-43, 68-72)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16), in particular Article 5(1) thereof.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those of the Parliament and the Council;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Notice given to the institution – Subsequent submission of new material liable to influence the assessment of the institution concerned – Removal of the obligation to act

(Art. 232 EC)

Summary

The submission by the applicant, after the request to act, of new material that was liable to influence the defendant’s assessment removed the obligation to act, since the institution was not reasonably in a position to take a decision on the requests for exemption submitted to it owing to the submission of that new material.

(see para. 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Precise indication of the subject-matter of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(d) and 104(3))

Summary

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for interim measures must specify the subject-matter of the dispute, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. An applicant must also establish an interest in obtaining the measures sought.

(see paras 22, 52)

2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not generally be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, it may be necessary, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

(see para. 23)

3. An application which does not specify its subject-matter does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 44(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to which Article 104(3) of those rules refers and is thus inadmissible.

(see para. 50)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the application of Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry, and the conditions for quarantine (OJ 2000 L 278, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC) (see paras 33-45)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons (Art. 232, third para., EC) (see paras 62-65)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission’s Regular Report of 5 November 2003 concerning Turkey’s progress towards accession, in so far as it contains a Commission decision refusing to make a recommendation to the Council concerning pre-accession aid granted to Turkey and, in the alternative, for a finding of failure to act in that connection and, in any event, for an injunction in that regard.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Cemender Korkmaz, Corner House Research and the Kurdish Human Rights Project to pay the costs.
Case T-76/04 R

Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. KG

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 – Biocidal products – Admissibility of the application)

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 2 July 2004

Summary of the Order

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Precise indication of the subject-matter of the application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(d) and 104(3))

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that an application for interim measures must specify the subject-matter of the dispute, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. An applicant must also establish an interest in obtaining the measures sought.

(see paras 22, 52)

2. The issue of the admissibility of the main application should not generally be examined in proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, so as not to prejudge the substance of the case. However, it may be necessary, where it is contended that the main application to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main application is admissible.

(see para. 23)

3. An application which does not specify its subject-matter does not meet the criteria laid down in Article 44(1)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance to which Article 104(3) of those rules refers and is thus inadmissible.

(see para. 50)
Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance lays down the principle that a copy of every document served on the parties must be served on the interveners. It is only by way of derogation therefrom that the second sentence of Article 116(2) permits certain documents to be treated as confidential, thereby exempting them from the requirement that copies be served on interveners.

For the purpose of determining the conditions under which confidential treatment may be given to certain matters, it is necessary, in respect of each document on the file or passage in a procedural document for which confidential treatment is sought, to balance the applicants legitimate concern to prevent substantial damage to its business interests and the interveners' equally legitimate concern to have the necessary information for the purposes of being fully in a position to assert their rights and state their case before the Community Courts.

In addition, the first subparagraph of Article 5(4) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 1994 provides that an application by a party for certain matters or certain documents on the file to be treated confidentially must specify the confidential matters or passages and explain why each matter or passage concerned is confidential. Section VIII, points 2 and 3, of the Practice Directions of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2002 specify, in their turn, that an application for confidential treatment which is inadequately detailed will not be considered and that an application must accurately identify the particulars or passages to be excluded and briefly state the reasons for which each of those particulars or passages is regarded as confidential.

It follows that an application for confidential treatment which is insufficiently detailed as to the particulars it covers will be dismissed. It also follows that account will be taken of the succinctness of the reasons provided in support of an application for confidential treatment in situations where it is not sufficiently clear from the examination of the particulars covered by the application that they are confidential Such consideration is, in the interests of the proper administration of justice, a fortiori necessary in cases where the confidential treatment sought concerns a substantial amount of information.

Opposition to confidentiality by interveners must, in turn, relate to specific matters which have been obscured in the procedural documents and state the reasons for which confidentiality with regard to those matters should be refused. Accordingly, an application for confidential treatment must be upheld in so far as it concerns matters which have not been disputed, or not disputed expressly and in detail.

(see paras 39-45)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 30 March 2006 − Korkmaz and Others v Commission

(Case T-2/04)

Admissibility – Application for annulment – Act against which proceedings can be brought – Implied Commission decision refusing to make a proposal to the Council – Action for failure to act – Omission against which proceedings can be brought – Failure to address a proposal to the Council – Discretion – Injunction

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC) (see paras 33-45)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons (Art. 232, third para., EC) (see paras 62-65)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission’s Regular Report of 5 November 2003 concerning Turkey’s progress towards accession, in so far as it contains a Commission decision refusing to make a recommendation to the Council concerning pre-accession aid granted to Turkey and, in the alternative, for a finding of failure to act in that connection and, in any event, for an injunction in that regard.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;