ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials - Action - Act adversely affecting an official - Concept - Internal organization measure - Exclusion - Relocation of an official from one building to another in the same place of employment - Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1); Rules of Procedure, Art. 111)

Summary

An official is adversely affected by an act only where it is such as to have a direct effect on his position in law. Such acts need to be distinguished from measures relating purely to the internal organization of the services which do not adversely affect the position of the person concerned under the Staff Regulations.

The relocation of an official from one building to another in the same place of employment constitutes a measure relating to the internal organization of the services, since it affects neither the rights of the person concerned under the Staff Regulations nor his personal interests and thus does not alter his position in law. Consequently, an application for the annulment of such a measure is manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Costs - Proceedings devoid of purpose - Absence of a clear and unconditional discontinuance on the part of the applicant - Application of the rules provided for in the case of there being no need to give a decision (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5) and (6))

Summary

Where proceedings have become devoid of all purpose, because the defendant has acceded to the applicant' s request and the latter has shown no clear and unconditional intention to discontinue the proceedings, costs are not to be dealt with in accordance with Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure but in accordance with Article 87(6).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Interested persons ° Action concerning the Commission' s treatment of a complaint of an infringement of the competition rules ° Undertaking the subject-matter of the complaint

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

2. Procedure ° Rules on languages ° Derogations ° Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 35 and 36)

Summary

1. In the context of an action brought against the Commission on the basis of Article 175 of the Treaty seeking a declaration that the Commission infringed the Treaty in failing to deal with a complaint of infringement of Article 86 of the Treaty, the interest of the undertaking against which the complaint was directed in supporting the Commission' s position before the court cannot be denied. The undertaking in question has a definite interest in the complaint which the applicant lodged against it not culminating in the adoption by the Commission of binding measures in its regard. It follows that the application to intervene made by the undertaking in question satisfies the requirements of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC and must be granted.

2. Under Article 35(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance may, at the request of one of the parties, authorize a language other than the language of the case to be used for all or part of the proceedings. However, since this is a question of securing a derogation from the exclusive use of the language of the case, a request to that effect must be accompanied by a detailed and specific statement of reasons showing that, in the absence of such a derogation, the rights of the party making the request would be impaired or that it would not be able to understand the proceedings.

As an exception to the rule prescribing the exclusive use of the language of the case before the Court of First Instance, therefore, Article 36(1) of those Rules, which provides that it may be ordered that anything said or written in the course of the proceedings be translated into another language, must be interpreted strictly, namely as relating solely to such translations as are deemed necessary for the purposes of complying with the rights of the defence of one of the parties to the proceedings or of the proper conduct of the proceedings and of the work of the Court.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Costs ° Withdrawal ° No application for an order as to costs ° Claim by the defendant that its costs should be borne by the applicant ° Assessment ex officio by the Court of whether or not the applicants' obligation to bear the defendant' s costs is well founded ° Commission to bear its own costs where applicants have withdrawn their action for compensation for the damage caused to them as a result of the application of the milk quota scheme and those actions were justified at the time when they were brought

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(5))

Summary

Although under Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure, in the event of a withdrawal, an order that a party bear the costs of the other party is only possible if the other party has made an application to that effect, the third subparagraph of Article 87(5) provides that an order that a party is to bear its own costs can also be made even without an application by the other party. If an applicant withdraws his action without making an application for costs, it may be inferred that he is waiving any claim that the defendant should bear his own costs, but not that he is prepared to pay the defendant' s costs as well. Since the Court makes its decision on the removal of a case from the register in the event of a withdrawal and, as the case may be, on an application by the defendant for costs under the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 87(5) without any further procedural step, the applicant does not receive any express opportunity to contest that application for costs. Whether or not the applicant' s obligation to bear the defendant' s costs is well founded must therefore if necessary be assessed ex officio, in so far as the circumstances permit.

If in so doing it is apparent that the applicant had reason to bring an action because of the defendant' s conduct and therefore an obligation on the applicants to bear the defendant' s costs is not justified, then the application of the defendant for an order as to costs cannot be granted even where the applicant, when withdrawing from the proceedings, has not himself made an application for costs. In such a case, the parties must bear their own costs.

That course of action is required where a number of applicants who have brought actions for compensation for the damage suffered by them as a result of the application of certain provisions of the milk quota scheme withdraw their actions without making an application for costs. When their actions were brought, the Council and the Commission had not yet acknowledged their liability, as they subsequently did in a communication published in the Official Journal of the European Communities and, having regard to a proposed overall solution, waived application of the time-bar, so that the bringing of proceedings was justified by the concern to pursue claims which were subsequently acknowledged by offers of compensation which were accepted by the applicants.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Interested parties ° Case concerning the annulment of a decision not to admit an artist to a competition for selecting works of art for a building of a Community institution ° Chairman and members of the institution' s Staff Committee ° Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 37, second para)

Summary

An interest in the result of a case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice must be understood as a direct, existing interest in the success or failure of the submissions which relate specifically to the measure whose annulment or suspension is sought.

In a case which in substance concerns the annulment of a decision not to admit a self-employed artist to the second stage of a competition for selecting the works of art to be installed in a new building of a Community institution, an application by the chairman and members of the institution' s Staff Committee for leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the applicant, namely an order for suspension of the work of the committee for selecting works of art, is therefore inadmissible. They are unable to refer to any special circumstances capable of establishing the existence of a personal interest in the admission of the applicant to the second stage of the competition, or to demonstrate that their position could be affected in a sufficiently specific manner by the outcome of the dispute before the Court.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons concerned ° Dispute concerning the valdity of a decision applying the competition rules ° Complainant undertaking

(Satute of the Court of Justice (EEC), Art. 37)

2. Procedure ° Intervention ° Communication of the procedural documents to interveners ° Derogation ° Confidential treatment ° Conditions

(Statute of the Court of Justice (EEC), Art. 37; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))

3. Procedure ° Rules on the use of languages ° Derogations ° Conditions

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

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties - Lawyer's fees incurred by European institutions

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, first para., and Art. 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Matters to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

3 It is clear from the first paragraph of Article 17 and the first paragraph of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that, in proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the Community institutions are free to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer and that the latter's remuneration comes within the concept of expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings, and that, under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, those costs are regarded as recoverable.

4 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. Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Court of First Instance must freely consider the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings and 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 dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Council decision appointing members of the Economic and Social Committee ° Application by an association not representing, at national level, the whole of a category of economic and social activity ° Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 173, fourth para., 193 and 194)

Summary

A national association which represents the interests of a large number of Italian pensioners is not affected by the decision of the Council appointing members of the Economic and Social Committee by reason of attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons. First, the members of the Economic and Social Committee are appointed as representatives of the various categories of economic and social activity and not to represent the interests of associations to which they may belong, they may not be bound by any mandatory instructions and are completely independent in the performance of their duties in the general interest of the Community. Secondly, the defence of common interests is not enough to establish the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by an association.

Moreover, an association which, at national level, represents merely one of the constituent elements of one of the categories referred to in Article 193 of the Treaty and not the whole of that category is not in a position requiring the Council to take account of it in adopting its appointment decision.

Such an association cannot therefore in any way be considered to be individually concerned within the meaning of Article 173 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Definition - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties - Factors to be taken into consideration

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

2. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Definition - Involvement of many lawyers

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

Summary

1. 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, second, those which are necessary for that purpose.

As there are no 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 dispute for the agents and advisers involved and financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings. In doing so, the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreements in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

( see paras 14-15 )

2. Although in principle only the remuneration of a single lawyer may be regarded as falling within the concept of expenses necessarily incurred within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the primary consideration is none the less the total number of hours of work which may appear to be objectively necessary for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court, irrespective of the number of lawyers who may have provided the services in question.

The costs of the involvement of a new lawyer during the proceedings before the Court cannot be borne by the party ordered to pay costs except in so far as they correspond to time which that new lawyer spent on the file, other than time necessarily required in familiarising himself with that file.

( see paras 20-21 )
8

By letter of 20 May 1997, the Commission replied to the applicants that it was willing to pay them a total of BFR 500000 - equivalent at that date to UKL 8621 - in respect of recoverable costs. It considered, first, that, on examination of the notes of fees sent to it, only UKL 12701.64 could be regarded as expenses incurred for the purpose of the proceedings because, inter alia, certain of the costs declared related either to expenses incurred during the pre-litigation stage or to fees charged by two additional lawyers when only the services of one lawyer could be taken into account. Stressing, moreover, that only necessary expenses may be reimbursed as recoverable costs, it stated that in staff litigation a sum of BFR 250000 per case was normally the amount awarded. In this instance, it considered, Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 were identical and should thus be treated as one case, while Case T-99/95 was partly similar; applying those criteria, the amount to be paid should normally be BFR 375000. Its offer was, however, greater because of the greater complexity involved in these cases than in the majority of staff cases.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 18 July 1997. - Nutria AE v Commission of the European Communities. - Tendering procedure for the free supply of olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia - Damage alleged by the successful tenderer as a result of a delay in the collection of the olive oil by the carrier designated by the Commission - Action to establish non-contractual liability - Contractual origin of the Commission's obligation on which the action is based - Absence of any arbitration clause within the meaning of Article 181 of the EC Treaty - Clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court of First Instance. - Case T-180/95.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01317



Summary



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Arts 178, 181 and 183)

Summary

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

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment ° Action against a decision ° Revocation in the course of proceedings of the contested decision, on the ground of illegality ° Action rendered devoid of purpose ° No need to give a decision in the absence of legal interest on the part of the applicant in an annulment

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Procedure ° Decision replacing, in the course of proceedings, the contested decision meanwhile revoked ° Whether new claims permissible ° Limits ° New claims relating to a decision not yet adopted ° Inadmissible

3. Actions for annulment ° Judgment annulling a decision ° Determination of the implications for the national authorities' obligations ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature

(EC Treaty, Arts 173 and 174)

Summary

1. Where a Community institution revokes in the course of proceedings, before its implementation, a decision against which an action for annulment has been brought on the ground that the drafting procedure followed was unlawful in view of a judgment of the Court of First Instance given in another case, such revocation, which produces effects equivalent to those of a judgment annulling the decision, renders the action devoid of purpose and justifies a decision not to proceed to judgment inasmuch as the applicant cannot establish an interest in obtaining a judgment annulling the decision.

2. Although it may be possible, in an action for annulment, for new claims to be admissible, by way of exception, where they seek the annulment of a second decision which, during the proceedings, replaces the original decision, such a possibility cannot authorize review by the Court of the legality of a hypothetical second decision which has not yet been adopted. Accordingly, new claims relating to a decision which has not yet been adopted must be dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch as they modify the subject-matter of the action.

3. In an action for annulment, the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to rule on the possible obligations of the national authorities following such annulment, even if, where the action is well founded, it declares the contested act void.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of a Commission decision prohibiting refusal to supply a pharmaceutical product widely exported in parallel ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Balancing of all the interests involved

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104)

Summary

Where the Commission prohibits a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products from refusing to supply a medicinal product in order to prevent an increase in parallel exports from Member States where the product is marketed at a significantly lower price than in the Member State of importation, on the ground that the Commission considers that such refusals to supply fall within the category of agreements prohibited by Article 85(1) of the Treaty, and where the manufacturer concerned contests that reasoning, maintaining that it unilaterally determines its business policy on the basis of a monitoring system not designed to dissuade wholesalers from exporting, the manufacturer is entitled to claim that immediate application of the Commission' s decision, which leaves uncertainties as to the criteria for distinguishing the unilateral from the contractual, would deprive it of its independence in defining certain crucial elements in its business policy and place it in a state of uncertainty as regards the extent of its freedom in defining that policy.

It is particularly likely, through a significant rise in parallel imports, to cause the manufacturer serious damage in the context of the pharmaceutical industry, which is distinctive in that prices and methods of reimbursement are fixed or controlled by national health services, giving rise to large disparities in the prices for a single medicine in the various Member States.

Where such damage would be disproportionate to the interests of wholesalers in increasing their exports and to the interest of the national health service, consumers and taxpayers of the State of importation in having the price of the product on the national market reduced, the Court hearing the application for interim measures must, in the light of the urgency of the matter, grant the suspension sought.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Provisional measures - Grant of an advance payment of damages - Measure likely to prove irreversible - Conditions for granting

(EC Treaty, Art. 186)

Summary

Where it is likely in practice to be irreversible in view of the applicant's financial situation and hence might have the effect of prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance in the main proceedings, the grant of an advance payment of damages sought by way of interim relief may be envisaged only if, on the one hand, the pleas and arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his request appear prima facie particularly strong and well founded and, on the other hand, there is undeniable urgency.

Such likelihood of irreversibility exists specifically where, in order to prove the urgency of the application, the applicant describes the risk of bankruptcy to which he is exposed by his precarious financial situation, which in itself makes it scarcely possible in practice to make the advance subject to safeguards with a view to its repayment in the event that his claim in the main proceedings is rejected.