ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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)

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 Community judicature and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose.

see para. 33

2. 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. When ruling on the application for taxation of costs, the Community judicature 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.

Since 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 subject-matter 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 the financial interests which the parties had in the proceedings. In that respect, the ability of the Community judicature to assess the value of work carried out is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided.

see paras 34-35

3. So far as concerns determination of the recoverable costs, the primary consideration of the Community judicature is 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.

see para. 44
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compagnia Generale delle Acque v Commission

(Case T-264/00)

‛Annulment action — State aid — Reductions in social security contributions for undertakings in Venice and Chioggia — Commission decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and imposing the recovery of the aid paid — Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

1. Proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision to join the application for a separate ruling on the objection of inadmissibility to the substance — Dismissal of an action on the substance without ruling on that objection — Discretion of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 and 114(4)) (see paras 19-21)

2. State aid — Concept — Granting of an advantage to beneficiaries — Measures designed to compensate for possible competitive disadvantages affecting undertakings established in a given region of a Member State — Included (Art. 87(1) and (3) EC) (see paras 28, 29)

3. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Examination of an aid scheme as a whole — Lawfulness (Arts 87(1) EC and 88 EC) (see para. 34)

4. State aid — Adverse effect on competition — Effect on trade between Member States — Scope of the burden of proof on the Commission (Art. 88 EC) (see para. 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 (Art. 87(3)(c) EC) (see paras 44, 45)

6. State aid — Planned aid — Implementation before a final decision by the Commission — Commission decision ordering repayment of the aid — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Art. 88(3) EC) (see para. 54)

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 No 30/1997 and No 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission relates to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being partially manifestly inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

3. Compagnia Generale delle Acque SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 – Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R)

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – Admissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-24)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-27)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation 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 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Orders Cases T-234/00 R, T-235/00 R and T-283/00 R, while themselves all remaining joined, to be separated from the other cases referred to in the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008;

2. Rejects the applications for interim measures;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against the rejection of a trade mark application following an opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2. Community trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Permissible at any time — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 42 to 44)

Summary

1. Withdrawal of the opposition to registration of a Community trade mark makes an action brought before the Court of First Instance against an Appeal Board decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), which rejected the trade mark application by reason of the opposition, devoid of purpose, so that, pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure there is no further need for the Court to adjudicate.

Where the opposition is withdrawn during proceedings before the Board of Appeal, for a decision on the opposition, or during proceedings before the Community judicature, for a decision on an appeal made to the Office against the decision on the opposition, the foundation of the proceedings disappears and they thus become devoid of purpose.

see paras 14, 16

2. In opposition proceedings against registration of a Community trade mark pursuant to Article 42 et seq. of Regulation No 40/94, the opposition may in principle be withdrawn at any time. Whilst, in the first sentence of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 40/94, the legislature made express provision only for the possibility of withdrawing the trade mark application, the general system of the regulation places the applicant and the opponent on an equal footing in opposition proceedings, so that that equality also applies to the ability to withdraw pleadings.

see para. 15
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Decision merely confirmatory - Not actionable

(Art. 230 EC)

Summary

$$Acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC are those which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the applicant's interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal situation. To determine whether an act or decision produces such effects, it is necessary to look to its substance. As a consequence, an action for annulment brought against a decision which merely confirms an earlier decision not challenged in due time is inadmissible. A decision is merely confirmatory where it contains no new factors as compared with the earlier decision and is not preceded by a reexamination of the situation of the addressee of the earlier decision.

( see para. 25 )
Case T-167/01





Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Commission Decision ordering recovery of State aid – Action brought by an undertaking which has acquired assets of a company required to repay the aid – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 30 April 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Acts affecting the applicant's legal situation

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need to show a vested and present interest – Assessment at the time the action is brought

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

1.

2.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure — Time-limits for bringing actions — Time-bar — Excusable error — Meaning

2. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — Inadmissibility — (Arts 226 EC and 232, third para., EC)

Summary

1. With regard to time-limits for bringing actions, an error is excusable where it results from confusion caused by the actual conduct of the institution concerned and the applicant acted in good faith and exercised all the diligence required of a normally well-informed person.

see para. 35

2. An action brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, in breach of the Treaty, the Commission failed to act by not initiating proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations with regard to a Member State is inadmissible. Natural and legal persons may rely on the third paragraph of Article 232 EC only in order to challenge an institution ' s failure, in breach of the Treaty, to adopt measures other than recommendations or opinions of which they are potential addressees or which are of direct and individual concern to those persons. In the context of an action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, the only measures which the Commission may adopt are measures addressed to Member States. In addition, it is clear from the scheme of Article 226 EC that neither a reasoned opinion, which is merely a preliminary stage after which, if appropriate, an action may be brought before the Court of Justice for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations, nor reference to the Court of Justice by the actual lodging of such an action can constitute acts of direct concern to natural or legal persons.

see para. 44
Case T-45/02





DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW AgroSciences Ltd

v

European Parliament and Council of the European Union





«(Decision No 2455/2001/EC – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 6 May 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60 – Measure of general scope

(Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249 EC; Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 16(2), (3), (6), (7), (8) and (11); Decision No 2455/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

2.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60 – Inclusion of chlorpyrifos and trifluralin in that list – Companies manufacturing and marketing those substances – Whether directly concerned – Not so concerned

(Art 230, fourth para., EC; Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 16(1), (6), (7) and (8); Decision No 2455/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

3.. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60 – Inclusion of chlorpyrifos and trifluralin in that list – Action by companies manufacturing and marketing those substances – Inadmissible

(Art 230, fourth para., EC; Directive 2000/60 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 16(11); Council Directive 91/414; Decision No 2455/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1.

2.

3.
Case T-383/02





GD Searle LLC

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Application for a declaration of invalidity – Relative ground of invalidity – Amicable settlement – No need to adjudicate)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), 18 November 2003

Summary of the Order
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Negative administrative decision — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable harm — Burden of proof — Occurrence of harm depending on future and uncertain events — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. In principle, there can be no application to suspend the operation of a negative administrative decision, since the granting thereof cannot have the effect of changing the position of the applicant.

see para. 58

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 harm to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for the party who pleads serious and irreparable harm 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 where it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

However, damage which is purely hypothetical in so far as it is based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events cannot justify granting the interim measures requested.

see paras 62-65
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely pecuniary loss — Measure freezing assets of an individual as part of the fight against terrorism — (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim relief — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of better relief in interlocutory proceedings than in the main proceedings — No urgency — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

Summary

1. The urgency of an application for interim relief must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage being caused to the party seeking the relief. It is for that party to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering such damage. Purely financial damage cannot, in principle, be regarded as irreparable, or even difficult to repair, because it can be the subject of subsequent financial compensation. Nevertheless, the judge hearing an application for interim measures must determine in the light of the circumstances of the individual case whether immediate implementation of the measure which is the subject of the application for suspension may cause the applicant serious and immediate harm which no subsequent decision could repair.

In the case of an application for suspension of a measure freezing the funds of an individual as part of the fight against terrorism, the judge must ensure that the applicant has an amount of money which under normal circumstances should enable him to meet all the essential expenditure necessary to cater for his own basic needs and those of his family until a ruling is given in the main action.

see paras 27, 29-31

2. Although the grant of interim measures might at least partly remedy the non-material damage alleged by an applicant and resulting from the mention of his name in a decision concerning the adoption of specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies as part of the fight against terrorism, such grant would not do so any more than would an annulment of that decision in the judgment in the main action. Since the purpose of proceedings for interim relief is not to ensure reparation for damage but rather to ensure the full effectiveness of the ruling to be given in the main case, the condition relating to urgency is not met in such a case.

see para. 41
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions of admissibility – Application by the intervener – Intervener not having challenged the measure in question – Inadmissibility

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first subpara.)

Summary

It is clear from the first subparagraph of Article 104(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that any application under Article 242 EC for the suspension of a measure taken by an institution is admissible only if the applicant has challenged that measure in an action before the Court of First Instance.

The intervener in the main proceedings is therefore not entitled to apply for suspension of the contested measure when it has not itself challenged that measure.

Such an application is inadmissible even if based on Article 243 EC, since it does not seek a measure that is any different from what is provided for in Article 242 EC. The intervener cannot circumvent the rules contained in that provision of the Rules of Procedure by artificially making its application subject to other rules contained in the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 18, 20-21)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Intervention – Communication of pleadings to interveners – Derogation

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 116(2))

2. Procedure – Intervention – Communication of pleadings to interveners – Derogation

3. Procedure – Intervention – Communication of pleadings to interveners – Derogation

Summary

1. Article 116(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that ‘the intervener shall receive a copy of every document served on the parties’, but that ‘[t]he President may, however, on application by one of the parties, omit secret or confidential documents’.

For the purpose of determining the conditions under which confidential treatment may be given to certain documents in the file, it is necessary to balance, in respect of each document or part of a document on the Court’s file for which confidential treatment is claimed, the applicant’s legitimate concern to prevent substantial damage to its business interests and the interveners’ equally legitimate concern to have the necessary information for the purpose of being fully in a position to assert their rights and to state their case before the Community judicature.

When the applicant has set out, in respect of each item covered by the request for confidential treatment, the reasons why it considers that disclosure thereof would substantially damage its business interests, the interveners’ challenge to the request for confidentiality must, so that the President can evaluate the balance of interests, relate to precise items of the procedural documents which have been obscured and indicate the reasons why confidentiality with regard to those items should be refused.

(see paras 9-12)

2. A request by one of the parties to withdraw from the file documents or parts of documents in respect of which the President is likely to reject the request for confidential treatment cannot be accepted, since it seeks to circumvent the President’s decision on the request for confidential treatment.

(see para. 13)

3. Confidential treatment of information relating to facts dating from more than five years ago can only, exceptionally, be granted if it is shown that, notwithstanding their historical nature, they still constitute essential elements of the commercial position of the undertaking concerned.

(see para. 45)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

5 August 2003

((Interlocutory proceedings – Competition – Payment of Fine – Bank guarantee – Urgency – None))

applicant,

intervener,

v

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

makes the following

Order

Facts and procedure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

1.

2.

H. Jung B. Vesterdorf
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/33, Art. 5(1)) (see paras 42-43, 68-72

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16), in particular Article 5(1) thereof.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those of the Parliament and the Council;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland and the Commission, as well as Hockenheim-Ring GmbH and Exploitatie Circuit Park Zandvoort BV, to bear their own costs.