ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Action brought by a producer marketing products under a name entered who has objected to its registration to the national authorities - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 7; Commission Regulation No 1338/2000)

Summary

$$An action for annulment brought by a producer of duck-derived products against Regulation No 1338/2000, supplementing the Annex to Regulation No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Regulation No 2081/92, is inadmissible inasmuch as it registers, as a protected geographical indication the name Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest.

Although rules such as those at issue which, by virtue of their nature and scope, are of a legislative nature, may be of individual concern to natural or legal persons, that is not the case here. First, any other producer who is now, or may be in the future, in the same position as the applicant, is affected by the contested regulation in the same way as the applicant. Next, the fact that a legislative measure may have specific effects which differ according to the various persons to whom it applies is not such as to differentiate them in relation to all the other operators concerned where - as in this case - that measure is applied on the basis of an objectively determined situation. Lastly, the use of the geographical designation which the applicant cites is not the consequence of a similar specific right, acquired at national or Community level before the adoption of Regulation No 1338/2000 and adversely affected by the regulation.

Furthermore, the fact that the competent authorities in the Member State in which the applicant is established did not forward its statement of objections to the Commission is not reason enough for the application to be declared admissible. In that connection, under the scheme for registering objections established by Regulation 2081/92, the procedural safeguards afforded to individuals fall exclusively within the responsibility of the Member States and do not involve the exercise of any discretion by the Commission, so that no procedural safeguards have been established for individuals at Community level.

( see paras 34, 36-37, 40-44, 47, 53 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to adopt a position on measures taken against the Republic of Austria by the governments of the 14 other Member States and to demand the immediate revocation of those measures - Inadmissible

(Art. 232, third para., EC )

Summary

$$Natural and legal persons may bring proceedings before the Community Court under the third paragraph of Article 232 EC only for a declaration that an institution has declined, in breach of the Treaty, to adopt an act, other than a recommendation or an opinion, of which those persons are the potential addressees or which they could challenge in annulment proceedings.

The action for failure to act brought by a natural person seeking a declaration that by not adopting a position in relation to the measures taken against the Republic of Austria by the governments of the 14 other Member States and by not demanding the immediate revocation of those measures, the Commission declined to act and thereby acted in breach of the Treaty is therefore inadmissible.

( see paras 20, 23, 25 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Meaning - Measures producing binding legal effects - Administrative procedure applying the competition rules - Act constituting a provisional measure - Excluded

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Competition - Administrative procedure - Examination of complaints - Prior evaluation of the effect of national legislation on the anti-competitive conduct of undertakings - Whether permissible - Residual sphere of autonomous conduct of undertakings

(Arts 82 EC and 86 EC)

Summary

1. An institution empowered to find that there has been an infringement and to impose a sanction in respect of it and to which private persons may make complaint, as is the case with the Commission in the field of competition, necessarily adopts a measure producing legal effects when it terminates an investigation initiated upon a complaint by such a person. In that regard, a decision to close the file on a complaint cannot be described as preliminary or preparatory since it is the final step in the procedure and cannot be followed by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings.

An act by which the Commission merely informs the interested party of the state of progress in the procedure initiated against a Member State and gives its preliminary observations regarding its investigation in respect of that State cannot be regarded as terminating that procedure. Such an act constitutes a provisional measure.

( see paras 42, 44, 48 )

2. Since Article 82 EC relates only to anti-competitive conduct engaged in by undertakings on their own initiative, it is acceptable that the assessment of such conduct should require a prior evaluation of the national legislation applicable. However, that prior evaluation of the effect which the legislation may have on the conduct of undertakings relates only to whether that legislation does not preclude undertakings engaging in autonomous conduct which prevents, restricts or distorts competition.

( see para. 50 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Amendments to the Rules of Procedure - Immediate application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

2. Procedure - Intervention - Lodging of the application to intervene - Time-limit - Decision to open the oral procedure - Definition

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 52, 53, 115(1) and 116(6))

3. Procedure - Intervention - Persons having sufficient interest - Action for annulment of a refusal to act on a complaint based on the competition rules - Party subject of the complaint

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 37, second para., and 46)

Summary

$$1. Amendments to its Rules of Procedure adopted by the Court of First Instance, being procedural provisions, are, on principle, immediately applicable as from the date of their entry into force.

( see para. 23 )

2. Article 115(1) read with Article 116(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as in force since 1 February 2001, allows parties who have not lodged their application to intervene within the time-limits laid down for intervening during the written procedure to intervene on the basis of the Report for the Hearing during the oral procedure, subject to their application to intervene being lodged before the opening thereof.

In that regard, the decision to open the oral procedure, which is when time for lodging an application to intervene finally expires, is the decision under Article 53 of those Rules and is taken by the Court of First Instance after the presentation by the Judge-Rapporteur of the preliminary report provided for by Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure.

( see paras 24-25, 27 )

3. The concept of an interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which applies to the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 46 of that Statute, must be understood as a direct, existing interest in the grant of the order sought.

In the context of an action for annulment of a Commission decision refusing to act on a complaint alleging infringement of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC, an entity which is the subject of the complaint to which that refusal relates does have such an interest.

( see paras 32-34 )
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/00)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of the aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision to join the application for a separate ruling on the objection of inadmissibility to the substance — Dismissal of an action on the substance without ruling on that objection — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 21-23)

2. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Measures designed to compensate for possible competitive disadvantages affecting undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included (Art. 87(1) and (3) EC) (see paras 31, 32)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme as a whole — Lawfulness (Arts 87(1) EC and 88 EC) (see para. 39)

4. State aid — Commission decision — Assessment of the legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision (see para. 40)

5. State aid — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Scope of the burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 44, 45)

6. State aid — Prohibition — Exceptions — Aid which may be considered compatible with the common market — Aid for the development of particular areas — Exclusion of operating aid save in exceptional circumstances (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 50, 51)

7. State aid — Planned aid — Implementation before a final decision by the Commission — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 88(3) EC) (see para. 55)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

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

3. Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca — Burano Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Coopesca — Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca — Chioggia Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl, Murazzo — Piccola Società Cooperativa rl, RAM — Società Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi, Confcooperative — Unione Provinciale di Venezia et Comitato ‘Venezia Vuole Vivere’ are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Case T-14/00





Coöperatieve Aan- en Verkoopvereniging Ulestraten, Schimmert en Hulsberg BA and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Procedure – State aid – Action for annulment – Intervention – Interest in the result of the case)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 4 February 2004

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Decision taken in the guise of a directive - Action brought by an association - Conditions - Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

$$Although the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC does not deal expressly with the admissibility of actions for annulment brought against a directive, that fact alone is insufficient for such actions to be declared inadmissible. It must be examined whether the contested directive is none the less a decision of direct and individual concern to the applicant, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, even though that decision has been taken in the guise of a directive. The Community institutions cannot exclude, merely by the choice of the form of the act in question, the judicial protection afforded to individuals under that provision of the Treaty.

Persons other than the addressees may claim that a decision is of direct concern to them, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them, or by reason of factual circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and thereby distinguish them individually in the same way as the person addressed.

An association formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC by a measure affecting the general interests of that category, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment where its members may not do so individually. However, the existence of special circumstances, such as the part taken by an association in the procedure leading up to the adoption of an act under Article 230 EC, may support the admissibility of an action brought by an association whose members are not directly and individually concerned by that act.

( see paras 23-25 )
Case T-139/01 R

Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co.

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Interim proceedings — Common organisation of the banana market — Allocation of import licences — Admissibility — Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Provisional nature of the relief sought’

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 12 September 2001 II-2418

Summary of the Order

Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that applications for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures sought. The measures applied for must be provisional, in that they must not prejudge the decision on the substance. (see para. 45)

The issue of the admissibility of the main action should not, in principle, be examined in interlocutory proceedings in order to avoid prejudging that action. None the less, since the application for interim relief is related to the main action, it is appropriate, where it is contended that the latter is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there exist any grounds for concluding provisionally in favour of its admissibility. (see para. 49)

The urgency of an application for interim relief must be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the relief. It is for the party who pleads serious and irreparable damage to prove its existence. It is enough for the harm, particularly where it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, to be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability. (see para. 87)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Action for annulment - Action against a decision - Withdrawal in the course of proceedings of the contested decision - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Procedure - Costs - No need to adjudicate - Action rendered devoid of purpose by withdrawal of the contested decision - Defendant institution's obligation to consider carefully all the evidence relevant to an application for exemption before adopting a decision - Defendant liable for costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Action contesting a decision which was successively the object of a stay of execution and withdrawal in the course of proceedings – Disappearance of all legal effects prejudicial to the applicant – Application devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 230 EC)

2. Procedure – Costs – No need to adjudicate – Action rendered devoid of purpose by withdrawal of the contested decision – Change in the circumstances underlying the adoption of that decision – Each party to bear its own costs

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))

Summary

1. The applicant may retain an interest in the annulment of a measure withdrawn in the course of proceedings if the annulment of that measure may in itself have legal consequences.

Where application of the contested decision is suspended, it cannot have had legal effect between the suspension of its application and the entry into force of the decision withdrawing it, so that, unless effects prejudicial to the applicant remain for the period prior to the suspension, the action is devoid of purpose, rendering it unnecessary to adjudicate.

(see paras 38, 40-41, 47, 49)

2. Where the Commission in the course of proceedings has withdrawn a decision relating to proceedings for the application of Article 82 EC because of a change in the circumstances underlying its adoption, namely the state of competition, and where neither the decision to withdraw nor the documents placed in the file lead to the conclusion that the Commission accepted that that decision was unlawful in the light of the pleas in law advanced by the applicant, a fair reflection of the circumstances requires that each party bear its own costs.

(see paras 53, 55)
Case T-243/01 DEP

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Procedure – Taxation of costs)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 18 March 2005

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Definition – Elements to be taken into consideration

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

It follows from Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that recoverable costs are limited to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and which were necessary for that purpose.

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 case for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings. In that respect, the ability of the Court to assess the value of work carried out is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided.

The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. In ruling on the application for taxation of costs, the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers’ fees or any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

(see paras 21-23)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

13 December 2002

Case T-112/02

Gustaaf Van Dyck

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials — Classification in grade on recruitment — Request for reclassification — New fact — Concept’

Full text in Dutch II-1527

Application for:

annulment of the refusal given by the Commission to the request for reclassification submitted by the applicant.

Held:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Time-bar — Reopening — Condition — New fact — Decision altering the criteria for classification in grade on recruitment — Obligation to act within a reasonable time

(Staff Regulations, Arts 31(2), 90 and 91)

Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations does not permit the submission, without any time-limit, of a request seeking reconsideration by the appointing authority of a decision which has become final. Only where there is a substantial new fact, and within a reasonable time of the occurrence of such a fact, is the official concerned again entitled to bring an action against a decision which has become final, by first submitting a request pursuant to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission's decision of 7 February 1996 altering the criteria for the classification in grade of officials and taking effect on 5 October 1995, the date of delivery of the judgment in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v Commission, was precisely such a fact, allowing officials recruited previously to submit a request for a revision of their classification.

However, where an official, who has brought an admissible action before the Court of First Instance challenging the rejection by the Commission of his complaint directed against the refusal to review his classification on the basis of that decision, has withdrawn such an action for annulment, the decision rejecting that request for reclassification becomes final. The fact that the withdrawal took place in the light of the treatment given by the Court of First Instance to an application with similar subject-matter is immaterial in that regard. It follows that that official is not entitled to submit a request for reclassification, the purpose of which is identical to that of the first rejected request.

(see paras 54-56. 58-62)

See: C-389/98 P Gevaert v Commission [2001] ECR I-65. para. 49; T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECRSC I-A-201 and II-651. para. 19; T-202/97 Koopman v Commission [1998] ECRSC I-A-163 and II-511, para. 23; T-99/97 Stols v Council [2001], not published in the ECR, para. 40
Case T-7/02

Zapf Creation AG

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settlement — No need to adjudicate’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 26 February 2003 II-273

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action against the decision upholding the opposition to an application for a trade mark — Amicable settlement between the applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Office — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Costs awarded against the applicant

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 87(6) and 113; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

An amicable settlement concluded between a person who has filed a Community trade mark application with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the proprietor of an earlier mark that precludes registration of the mark claimed renders an action brought by the applicant against a decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office upholding the opposition to the trade mark application devoid of purpose, pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, such that there is no further need for the Court of First Instance to adjudicate.

With regard to deciding on costs under Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure, where the reason why an action has not proceeded to judgment is because of the amicable settlement reached between the applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Office and not any agreement entered into by the applicant and the defendant in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the applicant must bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office.

(see paras 10-12)