ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

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 ° Whether permissible ° Exceptional circumstances ° Grant of a period for provision of the guarantee made subject to conditions designed to safeguard the interests of the Community in the event that the applicant' s financial position should deteriorate over the intervening period

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The Court hearing an application for interim measures may order suspension of the obligation on an applicant undertaking to provide a bank guarantee ensuring payment of the fine imposed on it only if there are exceptional circumstances, which may, in particular, result from the fact that it is impossible for the undertaking to provide the necessary guarantee.

With regard to the difficulties which an applicant, by reason of its financial position, faces in obtaining from a bank the guarantee required by the Commission, such difficulties cannot be regarded as insurmountable simply because the bank' s assistance is made subject to an undertaking by other companies in the group to which the applicant belongs.

Suspension of the obligation to provide the guarantee may be justified in view of the time necessary for completing the steps required by such an undertaking. The grant of a period for provision of the guarantee corresponding to this constraint must, however, be made subject to conditions designed to safeguard the interests of the Community in the event that the applicant' s financial position should deteriorate over the intervening period.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Procedure ° Intervention ° Persons with an interest ° Dispute concerning the validity of a decision concerning State aid ° Application for annulment of a Commission decision finding no grounds for taking action with regard to an existing aid scheme ° Undertaking in receipt of aid under the said scheme ° Association of undertakings of another Member State which are competitors of the undertaking receiving aid under the scheme and whose objects, according to its statutes, include the protection of their interests

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

2. Procedure ° Rules governing languages ° Derogations ° Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 35)

Summary

1. In an action for annulment of a decision by the Commission not to propose measures in respect of an existing State aid scheme, as it could have done under Article 93(1) of the Treaty, both an undertaking which is a beneficiary of aid under that scheme and an association whose members are undertakings in another Member State in competition with the undertaking which is a beneficiary of aid under that scheme and whose statutes include the object of protecting the interests of its members may intervene since they have a sufficient interest in the outcome of the dispute.

2. Under Article 35(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance may authorize an intervener to use the language of its choice, other than the language of the case, provided that, first, that language should be one of those mentioned in Article 35(1) of the Rules of Procedure and, secondly, the procedure should not be delayed and the procedural rights of the main parties to the proceedings should not be prejudiced.

Where the request for derogation from the rules on languages relates to the oral procedure alone and there is no justified objection raised by the main parties, those rules should be applied flexibly.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 1998. - Opel Austria GmbH v Council of the European Union. - Taxation of costs. - Case T-115/94 (92).



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02739



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Matters to be taken into consideration

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

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

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

Summary

1 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. It follows that the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in that regard.

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 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 interests which the parties had in the proceedings.

2 The significance that a case may have from the point of view of Community law because of the new and important questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify high fees and the fact that one of the parties was represented by a number of lawyers. Since the Court, when fixing the recoverable costs, takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of adjudication, there is no need to give a ruling on the costs incurred by the parties in relation to the taxation proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures ° Submission of requests ° Formal requirements

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

Summary

An application for interim measures which does not state any circumstance establishing the urgency of the measures sought, which does not contain any precise account of the facts giving rise to the proceedings, and in which the pleas in law put forward are not supported by any specific arguments, does not fulfil the conditions laid down by Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance on suspension of operation and other interim measures.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Measures producing binding legal effects ° Commission decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings ° Preparatory measure

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 3283/94)

Summary

Acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the Treaty are measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting applicants' interests and bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. In the case of acts or decisions adopted by a procedure involving several stages, an act is in principle challengeable only if it is a measure definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of that procedure, and not an intermediate step intended to pave the way for that final decision.

Thus a Commission decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings cannot be regarded, by reason of its nature and effects, as a measure against which an action for annulment could lie.

Under the basic anti-dumping regulation, Regulation No 3283/94, the Commission is responsible for carrying out anti-dumping investigations and deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them by adopting provisional measures and proposing that the Council adopt definitive measures. The final decision, however, is a matter for the Council; it may refrain from taking any decision if it disagrees with the Commission, or else take a decision on the basis of the Commission' s proposals. The Commission' s role therefore forms an integral part of the Council' s decision-making process and its decision to initiate anti-dumping proceedings, since it does not automatically entail the imposition of anti-dumping duties or compel the undertakings involved either to cooperate in the investigation or to alter their commercial policy, is a purely preparatory act, not capable of immediately and irreversibly affecting the legal position of those undertakings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Approximation of laws concerning health policy - Veterinary inspections on products from third countries - Total prohibition on imports of consignments of fishery products originating in Japan - Breach of the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment - Inadequate statement of reasons - Misuse of powers - None

(Commission Decision 95/119)

Summary

In so far as Commission Decision 95/119 concerning certain protective measures with regard to fishery products originating in Japan imposed a total ban on imports of consignments of such products, following a finding by Commission experts of serious shortcomings relating to hygiene and control in their production and storage conditions, it does not infringe the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality or equal treatment; nor is it tainted by an inadequate statement of reasons or by misuse of powers.

As regards specifically the principle of legal certainty, the decision did not have retroactive effect because it did not relate to imports made into the Community before it came into force. The fact that the decision also applied to goods en route to the Community at the time of its publication, and which it therefore actually affected, does not alter the fact that it took immediate effect, that is to say, it applied to all goods imported from the day on which it was published.

As regards the principle of proportionality, the Commission was not bound to provide for a special regime for traders with goods en route to the Community, since there is already provision for veterinary inspections on importation - less effective and less reliable - where health and hygiene requirements have been satisfied from the start and, secondly, since the importance of the objective pursued, namely the protection of public health, may justify restrictions which have adverse consequences for certain traders. Moreover, since the measure taken was not more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, and the Commission based its decision on reliable conclusions reached by experts, the decision does not breach the applicable provisions of the GATT.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Rules on languages - Derogations - Requirements

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

Summary

Under Article 35(2)(b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court of First Instance may, at the request of a party, authorize a language other than the language of the case to be used for all or part of the proceedings. However, a request for leave to derogate from the rule requiring exclusive use of the language of the case must be accompanied by a sufficiently detailed and specific statement of reasons, especially where it emanates from the applicant.

A request made by the applicant for leave to plead at the hearing in a language other than the language of the case on the sole ground that that language is not the mother tongue of its counsel does not satisfy that requirement to provide reasons for the request where it has not been shown that this factor was unforeseeable when the application was lodged and hence when the language of the case was chosen.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 March 1998. - Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Request for interim measures to be taken by the Commission - Powers of the Commission - Confirmatory act - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility. - Case T-235/95.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00523



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action brought against a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit - Inadmissible - Definition of a confirmatory decision - Identical decision taken after re-examination of the circumstances - Excluded from the definition

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing legal effects - Administrative procedure for the application of competition rules - Decision to reject a request for interim measures

(EC Treaty, Arts 85, 86 and 173, fourth para.; Regulation No 17, Art. 3(1))

Summary

3 An action for the annulment of a decision which merely confirms a previous decision not contested within the time-limit for bringing the proceedings is inadmissible. A decision is merely confirmatory of a previous decision if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom that previous measure was addressed.

4 An action for annulment may be brought only against measures which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting the applicant's interests by bringing about a significant change in his legal situation.

In order for a decision refusing a request for interim measures under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17 to constitute an actionable measure, the Commission must have the power to order the measures requested.

In that regard, it is quite clear that the Commission has no power, in the exercise of its powers under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 17, to issue directions to national courts, to take measures concerning them in abstracto, even in its capacity as `guardian of the Treaties', or to assess the validity of their decisions. Consequently, its refusal to adopt such measures does not affect any aspect of the legal situation of the person requesting it to do so, and his interests can thus in no way be affected whether that decision is upheld or annulled.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 1996. - Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for declaration of failure to act - Former officials - Social security - Admissibility. - Case T-226/95.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01619



Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure to act remedied prior to the initiation of proceedings - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

Where a defendant institution which has been requested to act defines its position in response to that request after the period of two months laid down by the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty has expired but prior to the initiation of proceedings, the conditions prescribed by that article for the admissibility of an action for failure to act are not fulfilled.

The fact that the position taken by the institution does not satisfy the applicant is immaterial in that regard, since Article 175 refers to failure to act in the sense of failure to take a decision or to define a position, not the adoption of a measure different from that desired or considered necessary by the persons concerned.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures having binding legal effects - Commission letter refusing to amend a regulation by fixing a specific agricultural conversion rate for a Member State - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Regulation No 1734/95)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by an association of sugar beet producers in a Member State against a Commission letter refusing to accede to its request seeking, in substance, an amendment to Regulation No 1734/95 is inadmissible, that regulation fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector, but not fixing any conversion rate applicable in the Member State concerned.

Acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the Treaty are those which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant's interests and bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. That is not the position with regard to a letter merely providing information and confined to explaining briefly to the addressee why the previous legislative position contained in the above regulation was taken. Furthermore, an action brought by a natural or legal person against a Commission refusal retroactively to rectify a measure will be inadmissible if the rectification requested would have had to be adopted in the form of a generally applicable regulation, since a consequence of the hierarchy of Community legal acts is that an act of general application cannot be implicitly altered by an individual decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment of measures - Action challenging a decision - Contested decision repealed in the course of the proceedings on account of clerical errors and a new, substantively identical decision adopted - Application rendered devoid of purpose - No need to proceed to judgment where the applicant has no interest in obtaining annulment

Summary

When, on account of clerical error in a decision which is being contested in an action for annulment, a Community institution repeals that decision in the course of the proceedings in order to replace it with a new decision which is substantively identical, that repeal renders the application devoid of purpose and it is not necessary for the case to proceed to judgment unless the applicant can establish an interest in obtaining its annulment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to initiate infringement proceedings - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Arts 169, 173, fourth para., and 175)

2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Fact that the Commission did not initiate infringement proceedings - Not unlawful - Claim for damages - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 215, second para.)

Summary

3 Where an action is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration of failure to act in that, by not initiating infringement proceedings against a Member State, the Commission has failed, in breach of the Treaty, to take a decision, that action is inadmissible, irrespective of the nature of the infringement of Community law alleged against the Member State concerned.

It is clear from the scheme of Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not obliged to commence proceedings under that provision but has a discretion in that regard which excludes the right for individuals to require it to adopt a specific position. Furthermore, a natural or legal person who requests the Commission to initiate a procedure under Article 169 is in fact seeking the adoption of acts which would not be of direct and individual concern to him within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty and which he would thus in any event be unable to challenge in annulment proceedings.

4 Since the Commission is under no obligation to commence infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, its decision not to do so is not unlawful and thus cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, the only conduct which might possibly be adduced as giving rise to damage being the conduct of the Member State concerned. Consequently, a claim for damages the real aim of which is to complain of the Commission's decision not to commence infringement proceedings against a Member State is inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 1997. - Union Européenne de l'Artisanat et des Petites et Moyennes Entreprises (UEAPME) v Council of the European Union. - Intervention. - Case T-135/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00373



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Dispute concerning the validity of a directive in the field of social policy - Action brought by an organization for the representation of employers at Community level which was not able to participate in the collective bargaining which preceded the adoption of the directive - Application for leave to intervene by national organizations which are members of the applicant organization and claim to have an interest of their own, arising from their role at the stage of adoption of national measures to transpose directives - Admissibility

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Council Directive 96/34)

Summary

Under the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the right to intervene is subject only to the condition that the applicant for leave to intervene establishes an interest in the result of the case submitted to the Court of First Instance.

In an action for annulment of Directive 96/34 on the framework agreement on parental leave, brought by an organization which represents at European level the interests of craft, small and medium-sized enterprises but which was not able to participate in the collective bargaining which preceded the adoption of the directive, an interest in the result of the case is established by national associations which are members of the applicant, represent the same interests at national level and are able to demonstrate an interest of their own, distinct from that of the applicant and connected with the limitation imposed by the directive on their freedom of negotiation at the stage of the adoption of national measures for the transposition of the directive.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 1996. - City of Mainz (Germany) v Commission of the European Communities. - Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - State aid - Urgency. - Case T-155/96 R.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01655



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of a decision ordering recovery of aid - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - Concept - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

The urgency of the adoption of interim measures must be considered by examining whether the implementation of the contested measures, prior to the intervention of the decision of the Community judicature on the main issue, is such as to give rise, for the party requesting the measures, to serious and irreparable damage which could not be put right if the contested decision were annulled or which, despite their interim nature, would be disproportionate to the defendant's interest in having the measures implemented, even when they are the subject of legal proceedings. It is for the applicant to prove that those conditions are satisfied.

An application for interim measures seeking suspension of the operation of a decision by which the Commission, finding that the sale of land at a price below its market value, concluded between the applicant local authority and an undertaking, constituted aid contrary to the Treaty, ordered that aid to be recovered by the Member State in question must be dismissed if the applicant has failed to adduce any convincing arguments to demonstrate the soundness of its contention that a risk of serious and irreparable damage would arise, in the first place, from the obligation under which it might find itself to institute legal proceedings against its contracting party to recover the alleged State aid and, second, from a possible fundamental variation of the contractual terms of the sale, or even the annulment of the contract, by the other contracting party.