ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Calculation

(Rules of Procedure, Arts. 80 and 81)

2. Procedure - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure

(Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 42, second para.)

Summary

1. A period of time allowed for commencing proceedings which is expressed in calendar months expires at the end of the day which, in the month indicated by the time-limit, bears the same number as the day from which time was set running.

2. No derogation from the application of the Community rules on procedural time-limits may be made save where the circumstances are quite exceptional, in the sense of being unforeseeable or amounting to force majeure, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC since the strict application of Community rules on procedural time-limits serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment ° Action against a decision ° Adoption in the course of the proceedings of a decision whose effect is tantamount to annulment of the contested decision ° Action rendered devoid of purpose ° No need to give a decision ° Statement of the reasons on which the amending decision was based considered unsatisfactory by the applicant ° Not relevant

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

The purpose of an action under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty against a decision is to secure the annulment of that decision, the only result which the applicant may claim. Consequently, where, in the course of the proceedings, the defendant adopts a decision which amends the contested decision and is tantamount to annulment thereof, nothing remains on which the Court can give a decision, the application becomes devoid of purpose and there is no need to give a decision. It is immaterial that the new decision is based on grounds which are not satisfactory to the applicant, in that they do not coincide with those set out in the pleas in law on which the action was based.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Suspension of the application of a judgment ° Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance ° Conditions for grant ° Serious and irreparable damage

(EEC Treaty, Art. 185; Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 53; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83(2))

Summary

In considering the merits of an application for suspension of the application of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling a decision of appointment to a vacancy, which is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Justice, the condition concerning urgency laid down in Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure must be regarded as not satisfied where, before the annulled appointment, the post in question was left vacant for a period of six months and the official ultimately appointed was authorized to work half-time for more than a year. In such circumstances the institution cannot maintain that the vacancy in the post for the duration of the proceedings before the Court of Justice is likely to cause it serious damage, a fortiori since Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations enables it to fill the post in question temporarily for a period not exceeding one year.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Conditions for granting ° Serious and irreparable damage

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

Summary

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 interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being caused by the immediate application of the measure which is the subject of the main proceedings.

With regard to an application for suspension of the operation of rules restrictively amending the conditions governing the eligibility of certain agricultural products for intervention, the urgency of the measure applied for in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage will not be established if the applicant has failed to demonstrate, with a sufficient degree of probability, the alleged risk that the market in question will collapse and if the Commission, which continually surveys the situation on that market, has means at its disposal allowing it, if necessary, to react quickly in order to re-establish its equilibrium.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil obligations ° Pre-litigation procedure ° Purpose ° Reasoned opinion not taking into account information provided in response to a letter of formal notice ° Irregularity rendering the action manifestly inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 169)

Summary

The purpose of the pre-litigation procedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law or to avail itself of its right to defend itself against the complaints made by the Commission.

The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by the Treaty in order not only to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute as its subject-matter. It is only on the basis of a properly conducted pre-litigation procedure that the contentious procedure before the Court will enable the latter to judge whether the Member State has in fact failed to fulfil the specific obligations which the Commission alleges it has breached.

Consequently, an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations brought by the Commission is manifestly inadmissible where it is established that the reasoned opinion which preceded it did not take account of information concerning the provisions adopted by the Member State concerned in order to fulfil its obligations and communicated by that State to the Commission in response to a letter of formal notice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Urgency ° Consideration given to the applicant' s failure to display due diligence before lodging an application for interim measures ° Balance of interests at stake ° Public safety ° Application to suspend a decision awarding a public supply contract already in course of performance

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

Summary

The Commission may, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, bring proceedings for the adoption of interim measures in parallel with an action against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations, in connection with a disputed procedure for the award of a public contract. Failure to comply with a directive in this field constitutes a serious threat to the legality of the Community order, and a subsequent declaration to the effect that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil its obligations, usually after the contract has been performed, cannot reverse the damage suffered by the Community legal order and by all the tenderers whose rights have been impaired.

Since the directives on that subject give precedence at national level to review before conclusion of the contract, the Commission must act at Community level as far as possible before the contract is concluded, or at least inform the Member State concerned, quickly and unambiguously, that it is in the process of reviewing possible infringements of the rules applicable to the contract at issue and that it intends to seek the suspension of the procedure for awarding the contract, or of the contract itself. If, on the basis of that information, the Member State proceeds with the award of the contract or with its performance, it does so at its own risk.

By allowing more than three months to elapse between receiving a complaint alleging irregularities in the procedure for awarding the contract and informing the Member State of its intention to seek suspension of the contract, the Commission did not display the diligence to be expected of a party which subsequently lodged an application for interim measures.

Furthermore, the Member State concerned cannot, in principle, on the basis of the balance of the interests at stake, rely on the risk to which a delay in the performance of the contract would expose users of a public utility when it is that State' s own inaction that has given rise to the situation in question; the Court may, however, in certain circumstances and in cases where the risk involved is serious, consider that it must not itself exacerbate that risk by granting the measure applied for.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Acts producing binding legal effects ° Commission letter refusing an application for Community financial aid

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Actions for annulment ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Issue of directions to an institution ° Not permissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

3. Actions for damages ° Distinction from actions for annulment ° Limits

(EEC Treaty, Arts 173 and 178)

Summary

1. A letter by which the Commission clearly and unambiguously informs an undertaking which has submitted an application for financial aid under Regulation No 4028/86 on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector that its application has been refused for lack of budgetary funds constitutes an act producing definitive legal effects with regard to the addressee where, by virtue of the relevant provisions of that regulation, the application in question cannot be carried forward to the next budgetary year. Such a letter amounts to proper notification of the decision contained therein and time for the purposes of bringing proceedings under Article 173 therefore starts to run on the day on which the undertaking concerned is apprised of its contents.

2. When exercising judicial review of legality under Article 173 of the Treaty, the Community judicature has no jurisdiction to issue directions, even where they concern the manner in which its judgments are to be complied with.

3. Although a party may take action by means of a claim for compensation without being obliged by any provision of law to seek the annulment of the illegal measure which causes him damage, he may not by those means circumvent the inadmissibility of an application which concerns the same instance of illegality and which has the same financial end in view. That would be the case if an undertaking which had failed to bring an action in good time for the annulment of a refusal to grant its application for Community financial aid were considered to have standing to bring an action for damages seeking payment of precisely the same amount as would have been granted by way of Community aid, increased by interest, on the basis of the same pleas in law alleging illegality as those put forward in support of the belated action for annulment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Procedural irregularity ° Need for the interests of the appellant to be adversely affected ° No adverse effect ° Dismissal

(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 ° Mere repetition of pleas and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Dismissal

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

Summary

1. An alteration made by the Court of First Instance to the name of the defendant as set out in the application initiating proceedings, thereby enabling the substance of an action which would otherwise have had to be declared inadmissible to be examined, is not a procedural irregularity adversely affecting the interests of the appellant within the meaning of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is capable as such of being pleaded in support of an appeal.

2. The combined effect 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 specifically advanced in support of the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which merely repeats or reproduces word for word the pleas in law and arguments already 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 re-examination of the application submitted to the Court of First Instance, which the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to undertake.
Case C-326/95





Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA

v

Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others





(Reference for a preliminary rulingfrom the Tribunal Cível da Comarca, Lisbon)

«(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court, 13 March 1996

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Interim measures ° Conditions for granting ° Prima facie case ° Serious and irreparable damage ° Cumulative conditions ° Consequences in the context of an appeal

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83(2); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Appeals ° Grounds ° Incorrect assessment of facts ° Inadmissibility ° Application with regard to an appeal against an interim order

(EC Treaty, Art. 168a; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 50, second para., and 51, first para.)

3. Appeals ° Grounds ° Failure to state sufficient reasons ° Application in the case of interim orders

Summary

1. Suspension of the operation of an act or other interim measures may be ordered if it is established that such an order is justified, prima facie, in fact and in law and that it is urgent in so far as it must, in order to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the applicant' s interests, be made and produce its effects before a decision is reached in the main action. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for interim measures must be dismissed if any one of them is absent.

Consequently, in an appeal against an order dismissing an application for interim measures on the ground that there was no urgency for the measures sought, pleas which relate to the existence of a prima facie case but do not call into question the lack of urgency cannot form grounds for setting aside, even partially, the order under appeal and must therefore be dismissed.

2. The provisions of Article 168a of the EC Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, under which an appeal is limited to points of law and may lie only on grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellants or infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance, apply equally to appeals brought under the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Statute of the Court of Justice against decisions of the Court of First Instance on applications for interim measures.

3. The judge hearing an application for interim measures cannot be required to reply explicitly to all the points of fact and law raised in the course of the interlocutory proceedings. It is sufficient that the reasons given validly justify his order in the light of the circumstances of the case and enable the Court of Justice to exercise its powers of review on appeal.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Dismissal

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

2 Officials - Obligation of the institution to provide assistance - Scope

3 Appeals - Pleas in law - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - None save where the clear sense has been distorted

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

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

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

Summary

5 An appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts. The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it and, secondly, to assess those facts. The Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the Treaty to review the legal characterization of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.

6 Although the administration is required, when faced with an incident which is incompatible with the good order and tranquillity of the service, to intervene with all the necessary vigour so as to ascertain the facts and to take the appropriate action in full knowledge of the matter, it cannot take disciplinary action against the official in question unless the preliminary measures ordered clearly establish that the official concerned has engaged in conduct detrimental to the proper functioning of the service or to the dignity and reputation of another official.

7 The appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it does not constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

8 Where all the other pleas in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been rejected, the plea concerning the illegality of the decision of that Court as to costs must, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, be rejected as inadmissible
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 1998. - Reisebüro Binder GmbH. - Revision of a judgment - Peliminary ruling - Application manifestly inadmissible. - Case C-116/96 REV.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-01889



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Appraisal by the national courts - Application made by the parties in the main proceedings for revision of a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 41; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 98 to 100)

Summary

Article 177 of the Treaty establishes a procedure for direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, in the course of which the parties concerned are merely invited to submit observations within the legal framework set out by the court making the reference.

Within the limits established by Article 177 of the Treaty, it is thus for the national courts alone to decide on the principle and purpose of any reference to the Court of Justice and it is also for those courts alone to judge whether they have obtained sufficient guidance from the preliminary ruling delivered in response to their reference or whether it appears to them necessary to refer the matter once more to the Court. Accordingly, the parties to the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice or on Articles 98 to 100 of the Rules of Procedure in order to seek revision of rulings delivered in pursuance of Article 177. Only the national court to which such a ruling is addressed may, if appropriate, submit new considerations to the Court which might lead it to give a different answer to a question submitted earlier.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Division of powers between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action for annulment - Actions by Member States - Concept - Action brought before the Court of Justice by a regional authority of a Member State - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Referral to the Court of First Instance

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47(2); Council Decisions 88/591, 93/350 and 94/149)

Summary

Since the entry into force of Decision 94/149, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is limited to actions brought by a Member State or by a Community institution.

In that respect, it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaties that the term Member State, for the purposes of the institutional provisions and, in particular, those relating to proceedings before the courts, refers only to government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot include the governments of regions or of autonomous communities, irrespective of the powers they may have. If the contrary were true, it would undermine the institutional balance provided for by the Treaties, which determine, inter alia, the conditions under which the Member States, that is to say the States party to the Treaties establishing the Communities and the Accession Treaties, participate in the functioning of the Community institutions. It is not possible for the European Communities to comprise a greater number of Member States than the number of States between which they were established.

Accordingly, when an action for annulment is brought before it on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty by a regional authority, which must be considered to be a legal person for the purposes of that provision, the Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of it and must refer it to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 47 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 1999. - Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Admissibility - Competition - Carriage by rail of maritime containers - Dominant position - Abuse - Fines. - Case C-436/97 P.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-02387



Keywords

Appeals - Pleas in law - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

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