ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Institution must be called upon to act - Conditions - Request must be clear and precise

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, second para.)

Summary

An action brought under Article 175 of the Treaty for failure to act is admissible only in so far as the applicant has duly followed the pre-litigation procedure, satisfying the essential procedural requirement of calling upon the institution concerned to act, within the meaning of the second paragraph of that provision. This it must have done with sufficient clarity and precision for the institution to have a clear idea of the content of the decision sought and to take cognisance of that fact that the applicant intends to compel it to state a position. Although there is no need, at the pre-litigation stage of such an action, to satisfy excessively stringent conditions as regards evidence that essential procedural requirements have been observed, a request merely that the institution provide certain information so that the applicant can take action itself is not sufficient.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation excluding the use of certain pest control products in organic farming - Action brought by producers who habitually use one of the excluded products - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Regulation No 1488/97)

Summary

An action contesting Regulation No 1488/97 - amending Regulation No 2092/91 and excluding certain products from the list of products which may be used for the purposes of pest and disease control in the organic production of agricultural products - brought by farmers who habitually use one of the excluded products is inadmissible. In the first place, the Regulation in question is addressed in abstract and general terms to undetermined classes of persons; it applies to objectively determined situations; and it is directed to the applicants only in their objective capacity as producers of organic agricultural products, in the same way as any other operator who is actually or potentially in an identical situation. Secondly, on the facts, the applicants in the present case are not individually concerned by that Regulation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 29 September 1997. - Région wallonne v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Aid to the steel sector - Application for annulment - Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty - Inadmissibility. - Case T-70/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01513



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action seeking annulment of a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty - Action brought by a regional authority of a federal State - Inadmissible

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33; EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

A federal regional authority is not entitled to bring an action seeking annulment of a decision adopted under the ECSC Treaty since such authorities are not referred to by Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty, which provides an exhaustive list of the persons entitled to bring an action for annulment, and Article 173 of the EC Treaty cannot apply to such an action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Definition

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 90 and 91(b))

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

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

Summary

1. It follows from Articles 91(b) and 90 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, to the exclusion of the stage preceding those proceedings and, second, to those necessary for those purposes.

( see paras 24-25 )

2. The Community Court 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. When ruling on an application for taxation of costs, the Community Court is not obliged to take account of any national scale of lawyers' fees or any agreement in that regard between the party concerned and his agents or advisers. In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee-scales, the Community Court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the proceedings for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

The significance of a case from the point of view of Community law by reason of the new questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify high fees and also a party's being represented by a number of lawyers.

( see paras 26-31 )
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 December 1997. - Camar Srl v Commission of the European Communities et Council of the European Union. - Common organization of the markets - Bananas - Application for interim measures - Request for the issue of import licences. - Case T-260/97 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-02357



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Meaning - Damage of a strictly financial nature

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

Summary

It is necessary to assess urgency - which, pursuant to Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure, is a necessary condition for the suspension of operation of a measure or for other interim measures - by examining whether, pending the Court's decision on the substance, the applicant could suffer serious and irreversible harm which cannot be made good by the judgment in the main proceedings. However, damage of a purely financial nature cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation. However, damage can be considered irreparable when the undertaking's position on the market is at risk, in that the possible loss of the market cannot be made good even by receipt of financial compensation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 September 1998. - Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v Commission of the European Communities. - Agriculture - Action for annulment of a regulation having general application - Inadmissibility - Case T-269/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-03105



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation excluding the use of certain pest control products in organic farming - Action brought by producers who habitually use one of the excluded products - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Regulation No 1488/97)

Summary

An action contesting Regulation No 1488/97 - amending Regulation No 2092/91 and excluding certain products from the list of products which may be used for the purposes of pest and disease control in the organic production of agricultural products - brought by farmers who habitually use one of the excluded products is inadmissible. In the first place, the Regulation in question is addressed in abstract and general terms to undetermined classes of persons; it applies to objectively determined situations; and it is directed to the applicants only in their objective capacity as producers of organic agricultural products, in the same way as any other operator who is actually or potentially in an identical situation. Secondly, on the facts, the applicants in the present case are not individually concerned by that Regulation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 16 June 1998. - Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v Council of the European Union. - State aid - Shibuilding - Regulation laying down exceptions - Shipyards under restructuring - Action brought by a regional authority - Admissibility. - Case T-238/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02271



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Council regulation concerning aid to certain shipyards under restructuring - Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State by virtue of the fact that a shipyard named in the regulation is located in its territory - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, second and fourth paras; Council Regulation No 1013/97)

Summary

Notwithstanding the fact that a particular shipyard is named in Regulation No 1013/97, by which the Council empowers the Commission to adopt decisions addressed to the governments of particular Member States authorising, subject to certain conditions, the payment of new aid to certain shipyards situated in their respective territories, the regional authority on whose territory that shipyard is located lacks locus standi to contest the regulation.

The regional authority cannot rely on the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty since it is manifestly clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that the concept of Member State, within the meaning of the provisions relating to remedies, only applies to the government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot be extended to regional governments or self-governing communities, regardless of the extent of their powers.

Although such an authority possesses the required legal personality to bring an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, any general interest that it may have, as a third person, in obtaining a result which will favour the economic prosperity of a given business and, as a result, the level of employment in the geographical region where it carries on its activities, is insufficient on its own to enable that authority to be regarded as individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by the provisions of the contested Regulation.

Nor is such an authority directly concerned by the contested Regulation since the simple fact of adopting that measure cannot alone entail the consequences for employment in the region and the socio-economic repercussions which it alleges. The creation of such consequences necessarily supposes, first, the adoption of a decision by the Commission authorising the payment of aid on condition that no ship conversions are undertaken in the shipyard located in the region in question and, secondly, the adoption by that shipyard of autonomous measures connected with that decision, namely making employees redundant.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 1 February 1999. - Bureau européen des unions de consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European Communities. - Antidumping investigation - Consumers association - Refusal of recognition as interested party - Application for annulment - Expiry of regulation imposing provisional antidumping duty - Legal interest to proceed - No need to adjudicate. - Case T-256/97.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-00169



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action contesting a decision which has already been implemented

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

The legal interest of a consumers' association in maintaining an action for annulment of a Commission decision refusing to recognise it as an interested party for the purposes of an anti-dumping proceeding can continue to exist even when that decision has already been implemented. The annulment of such a decision is capable, of itself, of having legal consequences and particularly that of preventing a repetition of the Commission's practice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation abolishing adjustment aid for sugar beet producers - Action brought by sugar beet processing and production establishments - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2613/97, Art. 2)

Summary

The action brought by certain sugar beet processing and production establishments for the annulment of Article 2 of Regulation No 2613/97 - which abolishes all adjustment aid for sugar beet producers with effect from the 2001/2002 marketing year - is inadmissible.

That provision introduces a measure of general application which applies to an objectively determined situation and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract, namely the Member States and the sugar beet producers. Moreover, even though that measure is susceptible of affecting the applicants' situation, it would do so only by reason of their objective attribute as economic operators active in the sugar beet sector, in the same way as any economic operator engaged in the same business in the European Community.

In that connection, the fact that the measure's effects are likely to be felt more severely in the region where the applicants are active is irrelevant, since the possibility that such a measure may have different specific effects on the various persons to whom it applies is not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation and, in any event, the applicants are in the same situation as any other sugar producer operating in the same region.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case

(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for damages - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Daily loss of interest on the value of the damage - Irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288, second para., EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)

2 Actions for damages - Limitation period - Interruption - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 173 (now, after amendment, Art. 230 EC) and Art. 175 (now Art. 232 EC); EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)

Summary

1 It is apparent from the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty (now Article 288, second paragraph, EC) that for the Community to incur non-contractual liability and for the right to compensation for damage to arise, a series of requirements must first have been met, concerning the illegality of the alleged conduct of the institution, the reality of the damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the institution and the alleged damage. Time for the purposes of bringing proceedings in matters arising from the liability of the Community cannot start to run before all the requirements governing an obligation to provide compensation for damage are satisfied and in particular before the damage to be made good has materialised.

On the other hand, the limitation period is not prevented from running by the daily loss of interest on the value of the damage in respect of which compensation is claimed before the Court. Interest being calculated on the value of the damage at the date on which it materialised, its purpose is merely to ensure updated compensation for the damage suffered and it must not be confused with the event, within the meaning of Article 43 of the Statute, which constitutes the moment when the limitation period begins to run.

2 The limitation period for proceedings in which it is sought to establish Community liability may be interrupted either by the application brought before the Community judicature, or by a preliminary request addressed to the relevant institution, it being however understood that, in the latter case, interruption only occurs if the request is followed by an application within the time-limits determined by reference to Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) or Article 175 thereof (now Article 232 EC), depending on the case.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Commission letter rejecting an application for amendment of a provision of a regulation specifying the quantities to be taken into account for the grant of Community aid - Not covered

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 1991/92; Commission Regulation No 2252/92)

Summary

The action brought by an organisation of growers of raspberries for processing (a recognised producers' organisation pursuant to Regulation No 1991/92) for annulment of the Commission decision expressed in a letter refusing to accede to a request for, essentially, amendment of Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 fixing the volume of produce marketed to be taken into consideration for the purposes of granting the flat-rate aid to recognised producers' organisations is inadmissible.

Only measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in its legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. The letter at issue is not such a measure, since the obligation to repay - incumbent upon the applicant because it had been advanced start-up aid in excess of the definitive amount of such aid calculated in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation No 2252/92 - was a consequence of applying the rules in force. The fact that as a result of an informal decision the competent national authority did not take action to recover the debt, pending the Commission's adoption of a position, does not mean that the applicant's legal position in relation to the debt depended on the Commission's response to the request for amendment of the rules at issue.

Moreover, an action brought by a natural or legal person against a refusal by the Commission to rectify a measure retoactively will be inadmissible if the rectification requested would have had to be adopted in the form of a generally applicable regulation, as in the case of an amendment of Article 6 above, which provides for the grant of aid on the basis of an objective situation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Action by an overseas country or territory — Legal basis — (Art. 173, fourth para., EC (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation on rules for issuing import licences for certain products qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products — Action by Aruba — Inadmissibility — (Art. 173, fourth para., EC (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Commission Regulation No 2553/97)

Summary

1. In an action for annulment brought by an overseas country or territory, neither the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) nor its third paragraph lends itself to application by analogy. Consequently, such a country ' s standing to bring proceedings may be assessed only in the light of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

see para. 34

2. For natural and legal persons to be regarded as individually concerned by a measure of general application, it must affect their legal position by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee of a decision would be distinguished.

The territory of Aruba is not individually concerned by Regulation No 2553/97 on rules for issuing import licences for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products. The fact that Aruba is included in the limited group of overseas countries and territories (OCTs) identified in Annex IV to the EC Treaty is not sufficient for it to be regarded as individually concerned by the contested regulation.

Moreover, the general interest which an OCT, as an entity responsible for economic and social affairs within its jurisdiction, may have in obtaining a result that is favourable for its economic prosperity is not sufficient on its own to enable it to be regarded as being concerned, or ─ a fortiori ─ individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), by the contested regulation.

Finally, the processing of sugar coming from third countries in the territory of OCTs and the export of sugar benefiting from the ACP/OCT cumulation of origin rule are commercial activities that may be carried out by any economic operator in any OCT. The processing of sugar and the export of sugar benefiting from the ACP/OCT cumulation of origin rule are therefore not activities such as to differentiate the applicant from all other OCTs.

see paras 38-41
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Imminent risk of serious and irreparable damage - Meaning

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

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing recovery of a fine for infringement of the competition rules - Necessary to balance the various interests at stake

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

Summary

1 In order for the condition for granting the suspension of operation of a measure or interim relief requiring the existence of a risk that the applicant will suffer serious and irreparable damage, it is not necessary to establish 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.

2 When hearing an application for suspension of operation of the obligation under which an undertaking must provide the Commission with a bank guarantee in order for the recovery of a fine for infringement of the competition rules to be postponed, the Court must balance the various interests at play, in particular the Commission's interest in being able to recover the fine should the main action be dismissed and, more generally, the public interest in maintaining the deterrent effect of fines imposed by the Commission.
61998B0145

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 September 1999. - ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communities. - Measures of inquiry - Production of documents. - Case T-145/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02627