ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action brought by bodies representing the employees of the recipient undertaking - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93(2) and 173, fourth para.)

Summary

Applicants cannot properly rely on the fact that they are the recognised representatives of the employees of an undertaking in receipt of aid to claim that they are individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market. In contrast to Community control of concentrations, in so far as the Council has not yet exercised its power under Article 94 of the Treaty to adopt regulations for the application of Articles 92 and 93, there are no provisions, as regards State aid, comparable to those contained in Regulation No 4064/89 which expressly grant procedural prerogatives to the recognised representatives of employees.

It is not excluded that such bodies might, qua parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, submit comments to the Commission on considerations of a social nature which could be taken into account by the latter, if appropriate. However, they may not be regarded as individually concerned by the decision where - since no competitive position has been significantly affected and there is no actual infringement of the entitlement which they might have in their capacity as parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty to submit their comments during the procedure before the Commission - they cannot claim any prejudice such as to demonstrate that their legal position is significantly affected by the contested decision.

Nor can those bodies be regarded as directly concerned by the decision. Such a measure does not, in itself, entail direct consequences for the interests of the employees of the undertaking in receipt of aid. Such consequences will be produced only if measures independent of the Commission's decision are adopted by the undertaking itself or by the employers and employees.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation fixing the amount of production aid payable in advance to producers of olive oil - Action brought by a Member State regional body founding on the measure's impact on that region - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, second and fourth paras; Commission Regulation No 1979/97)

Summary

A regional body of a Member State has no right of action against a regulation determining, in the context of the common organisation of the markets in oils and fats, the estimated production of olive oil and the amount of unit production aid that may be paid in advance for any given marketing year to producers established in the Community, claiming that the reduction brought about by the regulation in the amount of aid payable has significant socio-economic consequences for its region.

A regional body cannot rely on the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty since it is clear from the general scheme of the Treaty that the term `Member State', for the purposes of the provisions relating to proceedings before the Community courts, refers only to the government authorities of the Member States of the European Communities and cannot be extended to the governments of the regions, irrespective of the powers they may have.

Notwithstanding the fact that the body in question may possess the requisite legal personality to bring an action under the fourth paragraph of Article 173, since the regulation in question is not in the nature of a decision, the general interest that such an applicant may have - as the body responsible for the economic and social affairs within its jurisdiction - in obtaining a result that is favourable to the economic prosperity of the region, is not sufficient on its own to enable it to be regarded as individually concerned by the provisions of the regulation.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 June 1997. - Elf Atochem SA v Commission of the European Communities. - Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigations - Reports drawn up following an investigation - Action for annulmen - Actionable measures - Inadmissibility. - Case T-9/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00909



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures producing binding legal effects - Documents drawn up by the Commission's officials in the course of an investigation - Preparatory documents

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 17, Arts 3(1), 11 and 14)

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 the interests of the applicant by bringing about a significant change in its 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 the final decision.

Documents, referred to as reports, drawn up by the Commission's officials during an investigation into an undertaking under Article 14(2) of Regulation No 17 and containing a summary of what was said by that undertaking's representatives in the course of the investigation, cannot be regarded as actionable measures in so far as they cannot be considered to affect the undertaking's legal position immediately and irreversibly.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Time-limits - Point from which time starts to run - Event causing time to run - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fifth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fifth para., EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 102(2))

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Decision addressed to a Member State, granting financial assistance for certain projects proposed under the Leader II programme - Application by a local action group whose project was not accepted - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

Summary

1. With regard to the time-limits laid down in the last paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the last paragraph of Article 230 EC) and in Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, it is for the party pleading that the action is out of time to provide evidence of the date on which the event causing time to begin to run occurred.

( see para. 47 )

2. Persons other than the addressees of a decision can only claim to be individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), if that decision affects them because of certain attributes peculiar to them or because of a factual situation which distinguishes them from any other person and thereby individualises them in a way similar to that of the addressee.

That is not the case where, by its decision, the Commission excludes the territory of some administrative units in areas for action for local action groups or other joint actors are liable to receive financial assistance from the Community during the second phase of the Leader II programme. The contested decision does not concern the applicant in a way which is different from other local action groups or joint actors, but is to be seen, with respect to the applicant, as a measure whose effects are capable of concerning various categories of individuals in an objective, general and abstract manner.

( see paras 63-64 )
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, extended composition) of 18 February 1998. - Comité d'entreprise de la Société française de production, Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de télévision CGT (SNRT-CGT), Syndicat unifié de radio et de télévision CFDT (SURT-CFDT), Syndicat national Force ouvrière de radiodiffusion et de télévision and Syndicat national de l'encadrement audiovisuel CFE-CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC) v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Trade unions and works councils - Inadmissibility. - Case T-189/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00335



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market - Action brought by bodies representing the employees of the recipient undertaking - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93(2) and 173, fourth para.)

Summary

Applicants cannot properly rely on the fact that they are the recognised representatives of the employees of an undertaking in receipt of aid to claim that they are individually concerned, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, by a Commission decision declaring that aid incompatible with the common market. In contrast to Community control of concentrations, in so far as the Council has not yet exercised its power under Article 94 of the Treaty to adopt regulations for the application of Articles 92 and 93, there are no provisions, as regards State aid, comparable to those contained in Regulation No 4064/89 which expressly grant procedural prerogatives to the recognised representatives of employees.

It is not excluded that such bodies might, qua parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, submit comments to the Commission on considerations of a social nature which could be taken into account by the latter, if appropriate. However, they may not be regarded as individually concerned by the decision where - since no competitive position has been significantly affected and there is no actual infringement of the entitlement which they might have in their capacity as parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty to submit their comments during the procedure before the Commission - they cannot claim any prejudice such as to demonstrate that their legal position is significantly affected by the contested decision.

Nor can those bodies be regarded as directly concerned by the decision. Such a measure does not, in itself, entail direct consequences for the interests of the employees of the undertaking in receipt of aid. Such consequences will be produced only if measures independent of the Commission's decision are adopted by the undertaking itself or by the employers and employees.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended composition) of 30 June 1998. - British Shoe Corporation Footwear Supplies Ltd, Clark International Ltd, Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, Groupe André SA, Reno Versandhandel GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG v Commission of the European Communities. - Dumping - Textile footwear originating in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia - Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Action for annulment - Subsequent regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate. - Case T-73/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02619



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action contesting a regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Supervening regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Effects on the interest in bringing an action

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

An importer cannot rely on any legal effect arising from a regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty in order to establish an interest in challenging it before the Community judicature, if the amounts which it had to pay under that provisional regulation have been definitively collected at the rate laid down by the definitive regulation and the amounts which exceeded that rate, or related to products no longer affected by the anti-dumping duty, have been definitively released.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 14 May 1998. - Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-262/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02175



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Identification of the subject-matter of the proceedings - Brief statement of the grounds relied on - Application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

Under Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, all applications must indicate the subject-matter of the proceedings and include a brief statement of the grounds relied on. The information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court of First Instance to decide the case, if appropriate without other information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, if an action is to be admissible the essential facts and law on which it is based must be apparent from the text of the application itself, even if only stated briefly, provided the statement is coherent and comprehensible.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers that there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

Although, in special circumstances, it is not essential to specify the exact extent of the damage in the application and to state the amount of compensation sought, the applicant must establish, or at least indicate, the existence of any such circumstances in the application.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Appraisal allowing for the Community institution's discretion - Financial damage

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences.

In view of the fact that the Council, in adopting Decision 97/803 introducing, within the framework of the association arrangements for overseas countries and territories, tariff quotas for the importation of certain agricultural products free of customs duties, exercised its discretion with regard to the choice of the most appropriate measure for preventing disruption of the Community market for the products at issue and in order to ensure that the judge hearing an application for interim relief does not interfere with that discretion in granting suspension of the operation of the contested decision, the applicant's request can be granted only if the urgency of the measures sought appears undeniable.

Purely financial damage cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable since it can be made good by pecuniary compensation. The existence of exceptional circumstances may be found where it appears that, without the interim measure sought, the party concerned would be exposed to a situation liable to endanger its very existence or to alter its market share irreversibly.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Extension of interim measures - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC))
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Regulation registering a name as a protected geographical indication pursuant to Regulation No 2081/92 - Action brought by producers using a name other than that registered and by associations representing the interests of those producers - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 13; Commission Regulation No 644/98)

Summary

The admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is dependent upon the condition that the person concerned demonstrate a legal interest in bringing proceedings. In particular, he must be able to demonstrate a personal interest in the annulment of the contested decision.

Consequently, an action is inadmissible which is brought by olive oil producers for annulment of Regulation No 644/98 in so far as that measure registers the name `Toscano' as a protected geographical indication, where those producers use other names for the marketing of their products. In that connection it is irrelevant that those names are defined as `geographical sub-areas' or `variants' in the product specification drawn up for the purposes of registering the name `Toscano', since they are not registered names within the meaning of Article 13 of Regulation No 2081/92 and no Community protection whatever is conferred on them under that regulation. Since, therefore, the commercial use of those names by olive-oil producers like the applicants is not affected by Regulation No 644/98, and their right to submit an application for registration of the names in question as designations of origin or geographical indications remains unimpaired, the maintenance in force of Regulation No 644/98 can in no way affect their interests.

An action for annulment of Regulation No 644/98 is also inadmissible where brought by associations which rely solely on the fact that they represent the interests of olive oil producers using the names at issue, and do not refer to individual producers other than the applicants, whose action for annulment of that regulation is inadmissible. Unless there are special circumstances such as the role played in the procedure leading to adoption of the act at issue, an action for annulment brought by such an association is inadmissible if it could not have been brought by the association's members individually.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1998. - Société chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities. - State aid - Proceedings for interim relief - Intervention - Interim measures - Urgency - None. - Case T-73/98 R.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02769



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Burden of proof - Applicant's interest in obtaining the suspension requested

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

Summary

When deciding whether to grant interim measures, it is necessary to ascertain whether the applicant has established an interest in obtaining the measures requested.

Furthermore, the urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking suspension of the operation of a contested decision to prove that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering damage that would entail serious and irreparable consequences. In this connection, the risk of harm which is dependent on the occurrence of a number of factors must be established with a sufficient degree of probability.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Urgency - Cumulative requirements - Balancing of all the interests at stake

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

2. Applications for interim measures - Jurisdiction of the court hearing an application for interim relief - Limits - Claim seeking interim relief from the Court of First Instance to have effect until the Court of Justice delivers final judgment in any appeal - Inadmissible

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

3. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of an obligation to set up a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing immediate recovery of a fine - Conditions for granting - Exceptional circumstances

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

Summary

1. Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance provides that applications for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to the urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for. Those requirements are cumulative, so that an application for interim measures must be dismissed if either of them is absent. The Court hearing an application for interim measures must also, where appropriate, balance the various interests involved.

( see paras 22-23 )

2. A claim for interim relief having effect until the Court of Justice delivers final judgment in any appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance is manifestly inadmissible. A judge hearing an application for interim relief has no jurisdiction to order interim measures which are designed to produce their effects up to such time as the Court of Justice decides any appeal that might be brought against the final judgment of the Court of First Instance.

( see para. 41 )

3. A application for an order suspending operation of a measure, the purpose of which is to relieve an undertaking of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee, which was the condition imposed in return for an agreement to refrain from immediately enforcing a fine levied on it, cannot be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances, for to do so would render nugatory the principle laid down in Article 242 EC that actions shall not have suspensory effect.

( see para. 42 )