ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 1989. - Ursula Godfroy, née Wagner, v Court of Justice of the European Communities. - Admissibility. - Case 259/88.



European Court reports 1989 Page 00123

Pub.RJ Page Pub somm



Parties



Keywords

++++

Officials - Actions - Prior complaint through official channels - Implied decision of rejection not contested within the time-limits - Action barred

( Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91 )

Parties

In Case 259/88

Ursula Godfroy, née Wagner, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at 5 Hagsfelder Weg, 7513 Blankenloch, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Edmond Lebrun, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tony Biever, 83 boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte,

applicant,

v

Court of Justice of the European Communities, represented by Francis Hubeau, Head of Division, acting as Agent, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the former' s office in the Palais de la Cour de Justice ( No 1081 ), Kirchberg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for the reinstatement of the applicant after leave on personal grounds which ended on 15 September 1972,

THE COURT ( Fourth Chamber )

composed of : T . Koopmans, President of the Chamber, C . Kakouris and M . Díez de Velasco, Judges,

after hearing the views of the Advocate General,

hereby orders as follows :

( 1 ) The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

( 2 ) The parties shall bear their own costs .
Order of the President of the Court of 20 July 1988. - Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. - Award of a public works contract - Incinerator. - Case 194/88 R.



European Court reports 1988 Page 04547



Parties

Grounds

Operative part



Keywords

++++

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Powers conferred on the President by Article 84 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure

( EEC Treaty, Art . 186; Rules of Procedure, Art . 84 ( 2 ) )

Parties

In Case 194/88 R

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Guido Berardis, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of G . Kremlis, Jean Monnet Building, Kirchberg,

applicant,

v

Italian Republic,

defendant,

APPLICATION for an interim order for the suspension of the award by the "Consorzio per la costruzione e la gestione di un impianto per l' incenerimento e trasformazione dei rifiuti solidi urbani" ( Consortium for the Construction and Management of the Incinerator and Processing Plant for Solid Urban Refuse ), whose headquarters are at the offices of the City of La Spezia, of a public-works contract in connection with the Consortium' s incinerator,

The President of the Court of Justice

of the European Communities

makes the following

Order

Grounds

1 As to the facts of the case, reference is made to the application made on 18 July 1988 in which the Commission requested the Court to order, by way of interim relief in accordance with Article 84 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, the suspension of the award of a public-works contract by the "Consorzio per la costruzione e la gestione di un impianto per l' incenerimento e la trasformazione dei rifiuti solidi urbani ".

2 On the basis that the Commission' s assertions may, at this stage of the proceedings, be regarded as true, it appears that the adoption of interim measures is necessary .

3 It is necessary to enable the Court to be sufficiently informed and in a position to judge a complex situation .

Operative part

On those grounds,

The President

by way of interlocutory decision,

hereby orders :

( 1 ) The Italian Republic shall adopt all the necessary measures to suspend the award of a public-works contract by the "Consorzio per la costruzione e la gestione di un impianto per l' incenerimento e trasformazione dei rifiuti solidi urbani", whose headquarters are at the offices of the City of La Spezia, until 15 September 1988 or such other date as may be fixed by a subsequent order of the Court;

( 2 ) The Italian Republic shall lodge its observations on the Commission' s application before 5 September 1988;

( 3 ) Costs are reserved .

Luxembourg, 20 July 1988 .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions against Community institutions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Failures to act against which an action will lie - Request for a Commission decision addressed to the applicant and upholding a right claimed against a Member State - Request capable of being satisfied only by bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Inadmissible

( EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175, third paragraph )

Summary

The right of natural or legal persons to bring an action before the Court, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, is limited to applications seeking to establish a failure, contrary to the Treaty, to adopt acts which are potentially addressed to them .

Accordingly, an application which is based on that provision and complains of a failure to address to the applicant a decision recognizing a right which the applicant claims against a Member State, but which, in the light of the means available to the Commission in order to satisfy the applicant' s request, must be construed as being directed against a failure to initiate proceedings for a declaration that that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations, is inadmissible .
Keywords



Keywords

++++

Procedure - Allocation of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Proceedings instituted before the Court of Justice by a natural or legal person on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty concerning the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings - Reference to the Court of First Instance

(Council Decision 88/591, Art. 3(1)(c); Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 47, second para.)
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Action for annulment - Absence of a challengeable act - Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

2. Action for failure to act - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements laid down in the second paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty - Inadmissibility

(EEC Treaty, Art. 175)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions against Community institutions for failure to act ° Failure rectified after the action had been brought ° Application no longer having any subject-matter ° No need to give a decision

(EEC Treaty, Art. 175)

Summary

When, in an action against a Community institution for failure to act, the act whose omission constitutes the subject-matter of the dispute has been adopted after the action has been brought but before delivery of the judgment, the application will no longer have any subject-matter and there is consequently no need to give a decision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Definition ° Referendum of the staff organized by the administration ° Internal measure ° Excluded

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

Summary

Only acts which directly and individually affect the legal position of the persons concerned may be regarded as acts adversely affecting them within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

The decision by an institution to organize a referendum of its staff is a purely internal measure not creating any obligation for any person whatsoever to participate in the referendum. That measure which cannot, accordingly, bring about a significant change in the legal position of an official, cannot be described as an act adversely affecting him so that an action brought against the decision is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EEC Treaty, Art. 168a; Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 51; CJ Rules of Procedure, Art. 112(1)(c))

2. Procedure - Application - Formal requirements - Summary of pleas in law on which the application is based - Not set out in the application - Reproduction of administrative complaint in the body of the application - Not sufficient

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; CFI Rules of Procedure, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1. The combined effect of Article 168a of the Treaty, Article 51 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is that an appeal must indicate precisely which elements it challenges in the judgment of the Court of First Instance that it seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments which specifically support the appeal.

That requirement is not satisfied by pleas in law which, while criticizing the examination made in substance by the Court of First Instance of the appellant' s claims as a whole, merely repeat or reproduce word for word the arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly dismissed by that court, without containing any legal argument in support of the forms of order sought in the appeal. Such pleas seek to obtain merely a re-examination of the application and reply submitted to the Court of First Instance, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

2. Under Article 19 of the EEC Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, every application must contain a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Where there is no such statement, mere reproduction in the body of the application of the entire content of the administrative complaint does not satisfy that requirement.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Conditions of admissibility ° Main action dismissed as inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 83(1))

Summary

Where the main action to which an application for interim measures attaches is dismissed as inadmissible, the latter application is itself inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Declaration of the European Council on the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union ° Excluded ° Treaty on European Union ° Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, first para.)

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Plea in law directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs ° Inadmissibility where all the other pleas in law are dismissed

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

Summary

1. Neither the declaration of the European Council on the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union nor the Treaty on European Union is an act whose legality is subject to review under Article 173 of the Treaty.

2. Where all the other pleas in law relied upon in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been dismissed, the plea concerning the lawfulness of its decision on costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of Court of Justice, be dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Preliminary ruling proceedings ° Application to intervene by a natural or legal person not a party to the main proceedings ° Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 20 and 37)

Summary

A natural or legal person who has not sought or been granted leave to intervene before the national court is not entitled to apply for leave to intervene in preliminary ruling proceedings before the Court of Justice in order to submit observations on the question raised by the national court.

Article 37 of the Statute of the Court recognizes a right to intervene, but only in contentious proceedings designed to settle a dispute and not in proceedings under Article 177 of the Treaty; Article 177 provides for a right to submit observations but limits that right, as far as natural and legal persons are concerned, to those who are parties to the action pending before the national court seeking a ruling from the Court of Justice.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of the operation of a judgment ° Judgment of the Court of First Instance which is the subject of an appeal ° Conditions for granting suspension ° Proof of the existence of serious and irreparable damage

(EC Treaty, Art. 185; Rules of Procedure, Art. 83, second para.)

Summary

For the purposes of considering the merits of an application for the suspension of the operation of a judgment of the Court of First Instance, annulling a decision removing an official from his post, against which an appeal has been lodged before the Court of Justice, the conditions relating to urgency laid down in Article 83(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an order granting interim relief in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim protection.

Suspension must not be granted where the application simply refers to the serious disturbance and risks which the institution would run if it reinstated the official without putting forward any arguments in support of those statements.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

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

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, 2nd para.)

Summary

3 The combined effect of the first paragraph 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 advanced in support of the appeal.

An appeal which simply repeats or reproduces verbatim the pleas in law and arguments already submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on factual allegations expressly dismissed by that Court, does not meet that requirement; such an appeal merely seeks, in reality, reconsideration of the application submitted before the Court of First Instance, which, under Article 49 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.

4 Where all the other pleas advanced in an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance have been rejected, the plea concerning the order for costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, be declared inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment of measures — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Provision laying down the languages to be used for the single procedure for obtaining a Community trade mark — Action brought by a trade mark agent — Inadmissible — (EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 115)

Summary

Since the scope of Article 115 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, which applies to all persons applying for a Community trade mark by requiring them to adhere to a language system, is objectively determined in relation to its purpose, an action for annulment of that provision is inadmissible if brought by a natural person acting as a trade mark agent who has failed to show that his circumstances differentiate him from all other persons seeking to obtain a Community trade mark on their own behalf or on behalf of their principals.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Incorrect assessment of the facts ° Inadmissible ° Application to appeals brought against orders on applications for interim measures

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 50, second para., and 51, first para.)

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissible ° Dismissal

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

3. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Insufficient reasons ° Application in the case of orders made on applications for interim measures

Summary

1. Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, which limits appeals to points of law, to the exclusion of any assessment of the facts, also applies to appeals brought under the second paragraph of Article 50 of that Statute against decisions of the Court of First Instance on applications for interim measures.

2. It follows from Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely which aspects of the order are being contested and state the legal arguments relied on in support of the application for it to be set aside.

That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which confines itself to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously 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, a matter which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice by virtue of Article 49 of the EC Statute.

3. The Court of First Instance, when ruling on 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 by that Court validly justify its order in the light of the circumstances of the case and enable the Court of Justice to exercise its powers of review.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Recoverable costs - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties - Travel and subsistence expenses and remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers of the Community institutions - Conditions of recovery

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 73(b))

Summary

$$When, in proceedings before the Court, an institution avails itself of the option open to it under the first paragraph of Article 17 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer or to appoint as an agent a person who is not a member of its staff, the remuneration of that lawyer or agent comes within the concept of `expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings' within the meaning of Article 73(b) of the Rules of Procedure, pursuant to which they may therefore be recovered. When, on the other hand, an institution thinks that its interests will be better served if it is represented by one of its officials, acting as agent, it cannot claim reimbursement under Article 73(b) in respect of the work performed by the agent in the course of the proceedings, that is to say, it cannot recover a portion of the remuneration payable to that official under the Staff Regulations. That remuneration constitutes the counterpart for the official's performance of his duties as a whole, which may include defence of the interests of the institution before the Court. Consequently, it cannot be regarded as having been disbursed `for the purpose of the proceedings'. The position is different as regards expenses which are separable from the internal activity of an institution, such as travel and subsistence expenses necessarily incurred in connection with the proceedings.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Appeals - Pleas in law - Mere repetition of the pleas in law and arguments before the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible - Appeal dismissed

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 49 and 51; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))

2 Appeals - Pleas in law - Plea in law directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs - Inadmissible where all the other pleas in law are dismissed

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

Summary

3 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 arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance.

4 Where all the other pleas in law relied upon in an appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance have been dismissed, the plea concerning the lawfulness of its decision on costs must, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 51 of the Statute of Court of Justice, be dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 1997. - Konstantinos Dimitriadis v Court of Auditors of the European Communities. - Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded. - Case C-140/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-05635



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