ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility — Extent of its discretion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-22)

2. State aid — Concept — Measures intended to compensate for structural disadvantages borne by undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included — Adverse effect on competition — State measures seeking to approximate the conditions of competition, in a certain economic sector, with those prevailing in other Member States — Not permissible (Art. 87(1) EC) (see paras 28, 29)

3. State aid — Commission decision finding an aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Obligation to state reasons — Limits (Art. 88 EC) (see paras 31, 32, 35)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme in its general characteristics — Lawfulness — Low amount of aid and exercise of activities of undertakings beneficial at the local level — Aid capable of affecting intra-Community trade and causing a distortion of competition — Irrelevant (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 35-37)

5. 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 — No infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and legal certainty (Art. 87(3)(c) EC; Commission Notices 88/C 212/02 and 98/C 74/06) (see paras 48-50)

6. State aid — Recovery of unlawful aid — Restoration of the prior situation — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — Obligation of the Commission sufficiently to monitor the individual situation of each beneficiary — Possibility of leaving to the national authorities the task of determining without excessive difficulty the undertakings concerned (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras 57, 61)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the main proceedings.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Sagar Srl, in addition to bearing its own costs, is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
Cases T-226/00 DEP and T-227/00 DEP





Nan Ya Plastics Corporation and Far Eastern Textiles Ltd

v

Council of the European Union





«(Taxation of costs) »

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Competition), 6 March 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs

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

2.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Factors to be taken into account

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

3.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Definition – Involvement of more than one lawyer

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

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Standard of proof

(Art. 243 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Pecuniary damage - Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company - Assessment in the light of the situation of the group to which it belongs

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

Summary

1. Although it is correct that in order to establish the existence of serious and irreparable damage in the context of interlocutory proceedings it is not necessary for the occurrence of the damage to be demonstrated with absolute certainty, it being sufficient to show that damage is foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability, the applicant is still required to prove the facts forming the basis of its claim that such serious and irreparable damage is likely.

( see para. 49 )

2. In the context of the examination of an application for interim measures by the judge hearing that application, pecuniary damage cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even reparable with difficulty, where it can be the subject of future pecuniary compensation. In application of those principles, an interim measure would only be justified if it were apparent that without such a measure the applicant would be in a situation likely to endanger its existence. In the context of an examination of the applicant's financial viability, consideration may be given, for the purposes of assessing its economic circumstances, to the characteristics of the group of which, by virtue of its shareholding structure, it forms part.

( see paras 50-51, 54 )
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

9 August 2001

Case T-120/01 R

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank

‛Procedure for interim relief — Suspension from duties — Prima facie case — Urgency — None’

Full text in Italian II-783

Application for:

suspension of the operation of a number of measures adopted by the EIB concerning the applicant.

Held:

The application for interim relief is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Applications for interim relief — Suspension of operation of measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Circumstances in which nonmaterial damage cannot be remedied more satisfactorily by means of interim relief than by a ruling on the substance — None

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 applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for such measures must be dismissed if one of them is lacking. In the context of that general examination, the judge hearing the application for interim relief has a wide discretion, and is free to determine, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the manner and order in which those various conditions are to be examined, there being no rule of Community law imposing a pre-established scheme of analysis within which the need to order interim measures must be analysed and assessed. (see paras 12-13) See: C-363/98 P (R) Emesa Sugarv Commission [1998] ECR I-8787, para. 50; T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18
Action for failure to act — Failure remedied after commencement of proceedings — Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist — No need to adjudicate

Procedure — Costs — No need to adjudicate ordered in the light of a Commission decision taken after commencement of an action for failure to act — Decision taken within a reasonable period — Order that parties bear their own costs

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

Summary



Keywords

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

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

Summary

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)
The question of the admissibility of the main action should not, as a rule, be examined in proceedings for interim relief but should be reserved for the examination of the main application, except where it appears to be prima facie manifestly inadmissible. To determine admissibility at the interlocutory stage, in cases where an application is not prima facie entirely inadmissible, would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action.

An application 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 applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of the operation of a measure must be dismissed if any one of them is absent.

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for them. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences. The purpose of proceedings for interim relief is not to ensure reparation for damage but rather to ensure that the ruling on the substance has full effect.

(see paras 17, 31, 32)

See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 36; C-65/99 P (R) Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR I-1857, para. 62; T-236/02 R Marcuccio v Commission [2002] ECRSC I-A-181 and II-941, para. 32; Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission, cited above. para. 27
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure to act brought to an end before proceedings initiated - Inadmissible

(Arts 232 EC and 233, first para., EC)

Summary

$$An action for failure to act brought after the defendant institution has defined its position for the purposes of Article 232 EC is manifestly inadmissible since the failure to act no longer subsists. A judgment which, in such circumstances, found that there had been a failure to act on the part of the institution could not give rise to the measures for compliance referred to in the first paragraph of Article 233 EC.

( see paras 28-29 )
Case T-8/02

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-281

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)
The Staff Regulations, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for the application of Article 11(1) and (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations contain no provisions specifically governing, as regards the transfer of pension rights, the situation of a member of the temporary staff who has subsequently become an official. In the absence of such specific provisions, and if the person concerned is an official at the time when he makes a request to that effect, the transfer of pension rights is governed by the provisions of Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and by Article 4(2) and (3) of the general implementing provisions, pursuant to which the number of years of pensionable service to be credited is to be calculated by reference to the date of the official's establishment and his grade on establishment.

When pension rights are transferred, where the years of pensionable service to be credited are calculated in accordance with Article 4(4) (b) of the general provisions adopted by the Commission for the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer to the Community scheme of pension rights acquired before entering the service of the Communities, the total amount of the national pension rights involved in the transfer is converted on the basis of the current rate applicable on the date of the transfer. In that case, the salary and the actuarial value to be taken into account for calculating the years of pensionable service are, respectively, the salary applicable on the date of the transfer for the grade at which the official was established, and the actuarial value corresponding to the official's age on that same date. Because the rate has been updated to the date of the transfer, there is no need to deduct interest as provided for in Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions for the period between the date of establishment and that of the transfer, which is intended to compensate the Community institution for the delay in the actual transfer to the Community of the amount of the national pension rights to which the official is entitled on the date when he is established.

(see paras 59-60)

See: T-303/00, T-304/00 and T-322/00 Caballero Montoya and Others v Commission [20031 ECRSC I-A-29 and II-189, para. 76
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions

–

Actual and certain damage (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/2, Art. 1(1)(b) and (4) (see paras 22, 28-30, 32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission to bear their own costs.
Case T-398/02 R





Linea GIG Srl

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Application for interim relief – Competition – Payment of fine – Bank guarantee – Urgency – Exceptional circumstances – Balancing of interests)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 27 March 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Admissibility of the main application – Court hearing the application for interim measures must, of its own motion, examine whether there is an interest in bringing the main proceedings

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

2.. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Interest assessed as on the date of bringing the action – Action brought by an undertaking in liquidation against a decision imposing a fine on it – Possibility that liquidation proceedings will continue beyond the date of the Community Court's decision – Admissible

(Art. 230 EC)

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of a decision imposing a fine – Conditions for granting – Provision of a guarantee – Permissibility – Limits – Exceptional circumstances

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

4.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Decision requiring payment of a fine by an undertaking in liquidation – Protection of the financial interests of the Community – Dismissal of the application for suspension

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

1.

2.

3.

4.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Admissibility of the main action — Irrelevant — Limits — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Applications for interim measures — Provisional measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Standard of proof — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. The issue of the admissibility of the main action should, in principle, not be examined in relation to an application for interim measures, for fear of prejudging the substance of the case. Nevertheless, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim measures relates is manifestly inadmissible, it may prove necessary to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding prima facie that the main action is admissible.

see para. 55

2. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for the party who pleads serious and irreparable damage to prove its existence. It does not have to be established with absolute certainty that the harm is imminent. It is sufficient that the harm in question, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

see paras 94-95
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance — Action for annulment of the same measure, brought by a Member State before the Court of Justice and by an association before the Court of First Instance — Physical or legal persons not able to intervene in disputes before the Court of Justice between Member States and Community institutions — Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction so as to allow the Court of Justice to rule simultaneously on the two actions — (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 54, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 80)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting

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

2. Interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Precise indication of the subject-matter of the application – Condition a matter of public policy

(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 state the subject-matter of the proceedings, the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case ( fumus boni juris ) for the interim measures applied for.

(see para. 34)

2. An application which, without details as to its subject-matter, is vague and imprecise 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.

Compliance with Article 44 and the other provisions of the Rules of Procedure, and in particular those laying down conditions as to the admissibility of applications for interim relief, is a matter of public policy.

(see paras 48, 59)