ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Action for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Acts of direct and individual concern to such persons - Directive prohibiting the use in livestock rearing of certain substances having a hormonal action - Application to the Court by manufacturers and distributors of the prohibited substances - Inadmissibility

( EEC Treaty, second paragraph of Art . 173; Council Directive 88/146 )

Summary

Directive 88/146 prohibiting the use in livestock farming of certain substances having a hormonal action is not of direct and individual concern, for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, to the manufacturers and distributors of the prohibited substances . Consequently, such persons are not entitled to bring an action for its annulment .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a decision - Conditions for granting - Balancing the whole of the interests in question

( EEC Treaty, Art . 185 )

Summary

In proceedings for the suspension of the operation of a decision, when considering the requirement of urgency, the judge hearing the application for interim measures must assess whether the immediate application of the contested decision is capable of causing irreversible damage to the applicant which could not be remedied even if the contested decision were annulled and which, despite its provisional nature, would be out of proportion to the interest of the institution in question in having its decisions applied, in accordance with Article 185 of the EEC Treaty, even where proceedings have been brought before the Court against those decisions .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Costs - No need to give a decision

(Rules of Procedure Art. 69(6) )
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of operation of a regulation establishing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Conditions for granting - Specific nature of the damage

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

Operative part

( 1 ) The application is dismissed;

( 2 ) The costs are reserved .
Keywords

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1.Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of the operation of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Conditions for grant - Special damage

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

2.Procedure - Request for measures of inquiry - Inappropriate in an application for interim measures

( Rules of Procedure, Arts 45 and 83(2 ) )

Operative part

( 1)The application for interim measures is dismissed .

( 2)Costs, including those of the intervener, are reserved .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for grant - Serious and irreparable damage - Pecuniary damage

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

2 . Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for grant - Lodging of security

( EEC Treaty, Art . 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 86(2 ) )

Summary

1 . The urgency of an application for interim measures, as referred to in Article 83(2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage by the immediate application of the measure which is the subject of the main proceedings .

Although, in principle, pecuniary damage is not to be regarded as irreparable, the position may be different in exceptional circumstances where pecuniary compensation cannot restore the injured person to the position prior to the occurrence of the damage .

2 . The lodging of security as a condition for the grant of interim relief applied for pursuant to Article 86(2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, can be contemplated only if the party against which it is ordered is liable for the sums which the security is intended to cover and there is a risk of that party' s insolvency . There is no such risk in the event of the Community being liable for the said sums .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Withdrawal of an appeal - Order as to costs

(Rules of Procedure, Arts 69(3) and (4) and third paragraph of Art. 122)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

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

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. That party is required, however, to adduce adequate evidence that he could not await the outcome of the main proceedings without personally suffering serious and irreparable damage.

Damage of a pecuniary nature cannot, otherwise than in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable since, as a general rule, pecuniary compensation is capable of restoring the aggrieved person to the situation that obtained before he suffered the damage.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Referendum of the staff organized by an institution ° Internal measure ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Procedure ° Application initiating the proceedings ° Formal requirements ° Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

(Statute of the Court of Justice EEC, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 38(1)(c))

Summary

1. The acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty are measures producing binding legal effects of such a nature as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a significant change in his legal position.

The decision by a Community institution to organize a referendum of its staff is a purely internal measure not creating any obligation for any person whatsoever to participate in the referendum. That measure which cannot, accordingly, directly and individually affect the legal position of a staff union, may not be the subject-matter of an action for annulment brought by that union.

2. In accordance with Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. The fact that an application does not specify the pleas in law relied upon in support of the applicant' s claims and, in particular, in the case of a claim for damages, the nature of the damage which it has allegedly suffered, or the event giving rise to such damage, renders the claim for damages inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

References for a preliminary ruling ° Admissibility ° Question submitted without any details of the factual and legislative context

(EEC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. Those requirements are of particular importance in the field of competition, which is characterized by complex factual and legal situations.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Decision of the Commission not to raise any objections to State aid ° Businesses not in competition with recipients of aid ° Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and Art. 173, 2nd paragraph)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a decision by the Commission to regard a State aid as being compatible with the common market is inadmissible if the contested aid benefits exclusively a group of undertakings with which neither the applicant nor the businesses it represents are in competition. In such a situation, the applicant cannot be considered to be directly and individually concerned by the contested decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Acts producing binding legal effects ° Opinion addressed by the Commission to national authorities responsible for taking the measures prescribed by a regulation in the context of the common agricultural policy

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Objection of illegality ° Incidental nature ° Main claim inadmissible ° Inadmissibility of the objection

(EEC Treaty, Art. 184)

Summary

1. Only measures producing binding legal effects of such a kind as to affect the applicant' s interests constitute acts or decisions open to challenge by an application for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

Such is not the case for an opinion addressed by the Commission to the authorities of a Member State which not only merely contains a provisional view on draft national rules and recalls the scope of a Community regulation but also falls within the framework of the cooperation between the Commission and the national authorities which is inherent in and indispensable to the efficient management of the common agricultural policy and cannot therefore be regarded as producing legal effects for individuals.

2. The possibility provided by Article 184 of the Treaty of invoking the inapplicability of a regulation does not constitute an independent right of action and may only be sought incidentally. A finding of inadmissibility as regards the main claim therefore entails the inadmissibility of the claim brought under Article 184 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Erroneous assessment of the facts ° Inadmissibility ° Appeal dismissed

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 51)

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Appeal dismissed

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

Summary

1. By virtue of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance is to be limited to points of law and lies on grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interest of the appellant or the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance. A plea in law which restricts itself to contesting the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance is therefore inadmissible.

2. The combined effects of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure is that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment of the Court of First Instance which it is requested to have set aside, and also the legal arguments which specifically support that request.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which merely repeats or reproduces word for word the arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that court; in reality, such an appeal amounts to no more than a request for a reexamination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice by virtue of Article 49 of its Statute.
Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 July 1995. - Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain. - Removal from the register. - Case C-95/94.



European Court reports 1995 Page I-01967



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal justified by the conduct of the other party

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 69(5))

Parties

In Case C-95/94,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiro and José Luis Iglesias Buhigues, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Kingdom of Spain, represented by Alberto José Navarro González, Director-General for Community Legal and Institutional Coordination, and by Gloria Calvo Díaz, Abogado del Estado, of the State Legal Department dealing with matters before the Court of Justice, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by not bringing into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Twelfth Council Company Law Directive (89/667/EEC) of 21 December 1989 on single-member private limited-liability companies (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 40), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

after hearing Advocate General G. Cosmas,

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 29 May 1995, the Commission of the European Communities informed the Court pursuant to Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure that it wished to withdraw its application and requested the Court to order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) of those rules.

2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 7 June 1995, the Kingdom of Spain stated that it had no observations to make in regard to the Commission' s withdrawal.

3 Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(5) of the Rules of Procedure, a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party' s pleadings. However, upon application by the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs are to be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party.

4 In the present case, the Commission' s application and the subsequent withdrawal were the result of the conduct of the Kingdom of Spain, which did not adopt the measures necessary to comply with its obligations until after the Commission brought its action.

5 The Kingdom of Spain should therefore be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIXTH CHAMBER OF THE COURT

hereby orders:

1. Case C-95/94 is removed from the register.

2. The Kingdom of Spain shall bear the costs.

Luxembourg, 11 July 1995.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Preliminary rulings ° Admissibility ° Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

The information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court.
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 1998. - Dieter Obst v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Official - Recruitment procedure - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Statement of reasons - Compensation for damage - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded. - Case C-403/95 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-00027



Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea concerning the order of the Court of First Instance as to costs - Inadmissible where all the other pleas have been rejected

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, 2nd para.)

Summary

3 The combined effect of the first paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure is that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment of the Court of First Instance which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments advanced in support of the appeal.

An appeal which simply repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments already submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on factual allegations expressly dismissed by that Court, does not meet that requirement; such an appeal merely seeks, in reality, reconsideration of the application submitted before the Court of First Instance, which, under Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

4 Where all the other pleas advanced in an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance have been rejected, the plea concerning the order for costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, be declared inadmissible.
Case C-270/95 P





Christina Kik

v

Council of the European Union

and

Commission of the European Communities







«(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark – Languages – Actions for annulment of measures – Natural and legal persons – Acts of direct and individual concern to them – Appeal manifestly unfounded)»

Order of the Court (First Chamber), 28 March 1996

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Originating application - Procedural requirements - Application not brought through a lawyer - Applicant's standing as a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court - Not relevant - Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, third para., and Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(1), first subpara.)

Summary

Whatever his standing, a party within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is not authorized to act on his own before the Court, but must use the services of a third person authorized to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Admissibility — Request not providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context and not setting out the reasons for making a reference to the Court of Justice — (EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

The information provided and the questions raised in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court usefully to reply but also such as to give the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute of the Court. It is the Court ' s duty to ensure that the opportunity to do so is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

Consequently, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible inasmuch as it does not enable the Court to give a useful interpretation of Community law where the order for reference merely sets out offences contrary to national law with regard to employment procurement and temporary employment and indicates neither the contents of the provisions of national law to which it refers nor the precise reasons which prompted it to question their compatibility with Community law and to consider it necessary to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Keywords



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Dismissed

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

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Dismissed

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

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of evidence produced in accordance with the proper procedure - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)
61996O0046

Order of the Court of 4 March 1997. - Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities. - No need to give a decision. - Case C-46/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01189
Order of the Court of 30 June 1997. - Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ldª (CTV). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa - Portugal. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility. - Case C-66/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-03757



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions not relating to specific technical points, submitted without providing any explanation of the factual and legislative context

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

In order to reach an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court, it is essential that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based.

The information provided in orders for reference not only enables the Court usefully to reply but also gives the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties the opportunity to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court. It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the orders for reference are notified to the interested parties.

The requirement for the national court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking is less pressing where the questions relate to specific technical points and enable the Court to give a useful reply even where the national court has not given an exhaustive description of the legal and factual situation.

None the less, a request from a national court is manifestly inadmissible where the order for reference does not contain sufficient information regarding the factual and legal situation in the case before it and merely reproduces the questions suggested by the defendants in the main proceedings.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 June 1998. - Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities. - Officials - Manifestly inadmissible action before the Court of First Instance - Appeal clearly unfounded or inadmissible. - Case C-312/97 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-04135



Keywords

Appeals - Manifestly inadmissible action before the Court of First Instance - Appeal clearly unfounded or inadmissible

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119)