ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Erroneous assessment of the evidence ° Inadmissibility given the reasons for which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 119)

Summary

In an appeal, a plea in law based on errors allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance in assessing the evidence necessary for a consideration of the merits of an action may not validly be invoked in order to dispute either the inadmissibility of certain heads of claim or the dismissal on the merits of another head of claim based on the finding that the decision disputed by the applicant was the only decision which could lawfully have been adopted, so that Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure must be applied.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeal ° Pleas in law ° Mere repetition of pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance ° Inadmissibility ° Appeal dismissed

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

2. Appeal ° Pleas in law ° Procedural irregularity ° Hearing of witnesses ° Witness not objected to before the Court of First Instance ° Objection made for the first time before the Court of Justice ° Inadmissibility ° Appeal dismissed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 73(1) and (2))

Summary

1. It follows from Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice read in conjunction with Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure that an appeal must clearly state which aspects are criticized in the judgment which the Court is requested to set aside and the legal arguments which specifically support that request.

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.

2. In the context of an appeal, a plea based on the irregularity of the hearing of a witness by the Court of First Instance is manifestly inadmissible where the party in question, having had the opportunity to object to a witness in the circumstances provided for by Article 73 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, did not raise, at any time in the proceedings before that Court, any objection whatsoever to that hearing.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Refusal by the Commission to commence proceedings for failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 173)

Summary

An action by a natural or legal person for the annulment of a decision by the Commission not to institute proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Intervention ° Actions concerning the civil service ° Intervention by an official in an action for annulment brought by another official ° Admissibility ° Conditions

(EEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)

Summary

In the case of an application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official, the concept of an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be construed as a direct interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.

Consequently, in an action brought by an official for the annulment of a decision concerning the mode of payment of his salary, leave cannot be granted for the intervention of another official who did not bring an action against a decision concerning the payment of his own salary, although he could have done so, and who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case, relating to the success of an indirect objection of illegality raised by the applicant and deriving from the similarities between his situation and that of the applicant.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Application for annulment ° Natural or legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Regulation introducing arrangements for trade in bananas with third countries including a scheme for the allocation of a tariff quota among different categories of traders

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, second para.; Council Regulation No 404/93)

Summary

The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, so long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the act adopting the measure in question. In order for a measure to be of individual concern to the persons to whom it applies, it must affect their legal position because of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as a person to whom it is addressed.

A regulation introducing arrangements for trade in bananas with third countries and a mechanism for the allocation, among categories of traders defined according to objective criteria, of the tariff quota which it introduces applies to situations which have been determined objectively and has legal effects as regards categories of persons viewed in a general and abstract manner. It is of concern to traders coming within those different categories only in their objective capacity as traders engaged in the marketing of bananas from third countries in the same way as any other trader in an identical position.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Erroneous assessment of the facts ° Inadmissible ° Dismissed

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

2. Appeals ° Pleas in law ° Erroneous assessment of evidence duly produced ° Inadmissible ° Dismissed

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

Summary

1. According to Article 168a of the EC Treaty there is a right of appeal on points of law only, a restriction which is specified in the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice.

An appeal may therefore only be founded on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts; accordingly, an appeal is admissible only in so far as it is claimed that the decision of the Court of First Instance is incompatible with the rules of law the application of which it is called upon to ensure.

2. The Court of Justice has no more jurisdiction, on principle, to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance accepted in support of the facts than to find the facts themselves. Provided that the evidence was duly obtained and the rules and general principles of law relating to the burden of proof were observed, as also the rules of procedure in relation to the taking of evidence, it is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value which should be attached to the evidence produced.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure ° Principle of res judicata ° Scope ° Capacity to bring proceedings ° Included

Summary

The principle of res judicata extends only to matters of fact and law, such as (in this case) the capacity to bring proceedings, actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question.
Order of the Court of 8 August 1997. - Canadane Cheese Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri Anonymos Emoriki Kai Viomichaniki Etaireia v Hellenic Republic (Ypourgio Emboriou, Ypourgiou Oikonomikon, Ypourgiou Ygeias, Pronoias kai Koinonikon Asfaliseon and Ypourgiou Georgias. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Symvoulio Epikrateias (Conseil d'Etat) - Greece. - Removal from the register. - Case C-317/95.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-04681



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Withdrawal by the national court of the questions referred to the Court - Removal from the register

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 77 and 78)
Case C-137/95 P





Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Appeal – Competition – Decisions of associations of undertakings – Exemption – Appraisal of the gravity of infringements – Appeal clearly unfounded)»

Order of the Court, 25 March 1996

Summary of the Order

1.. Appeals – Pleas in law – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment which was not necessary to support the operative part thereof – Plea ineffectual



2.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Determination – Criteria – Gravity and duration of infringements – Consideration of the conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission – Excluded

( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), second subpara. )

3.. Competition – Fines – Amount – Conditions for the imposition of fines by the Commission – Infringement committed intentionally or negligently – Alternative conditions

( Council Regulation No 17, Art. 15(2), first subpara. )

1.

2.

3.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Originating application - Procedural requirements - Application not brought through a lawyer - Applicant's standing as a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court - Not relevant - Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 17, third para., and Art. 19, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 37(1), first subparagraph)

Summary

Whatever his standing, a party within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 17 of the Statute of the Court of Justice is not authorized to act in person before the Court, but must use the services of a third person authorized to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

Since no derogation from or exception to that obligation is provided for by the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the submission of an application signed by the applicant himself, even if he is a lawyer authorized to plead before a national court, cannot be sufficient for the purpose of bringing an action.
Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 September 1999. - Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson v Commission of the European Communities. - Taxation of costs - Expenses necessarily incurred by the parties. - Case C-409/96 P-DEP.



European Court reports 1999 Page I-04939



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.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 1997. - Giorgio Bernardi v European Parliament. - Appeal - Ombudsman - Nominations - Appointment procedure - Action for annulment - Appeal clearly inadmissible and unfounded. - Case C-303/96 P.



European Court reports 1997 Page I-01239



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.
Keywords



Keywords

Competition - Administrative procedure - Investigation of complaints - Concept of complaint within the meaning of Regulation No 17 - Assessment with reference to the purpose of the complaint

(Council Regulation No 17, Art. 3)
Order of the President of the Court of 17 June 1997. - National Power plc and PowerGen plc v British Coal Corporation and Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal - Order of the Court of First Instance dismissing applications for leave to intervene - Interest in the result of the case. - Joined cases C-151/97 P(I) and C-157/97 P(I).



European Court reports 1997 Page I-03491



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Assessment by the Community judicature of the interest in intervening

(ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 34; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37; EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 38)

Summary

For the purposes of granting leave to intervene, the Community judicature ascertains whether those seeking it are directly affected by the contested act and whether their interest in the result of the case is established. Similarly, it is necessary to establish a direct, existing interest in the grant by the Court of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. The interest necessary in this respect must relate not merely to abstract legal arguments but to the actual form of order sought by a party to the main action.
Case C-317/97 Ρ 
Smanor SA and Others 
ν 
Commission of the European Communities 
(Order of the Court of First Instance — Failure to initiate infringement 
proceedings — Action for a declaration of failure to act and for damages — 
Appeal — Manifest inadmissibility) 
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 July 1998 I - 4271 
Summary of the Order 
Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to 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(l)(c)) 
It follows from the first paragraph of Article 
51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, read 
together with Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules 
of Procedure, that an appeal must indicate 
precisely the contested elements of the order which it is sought to have set aside and also 
the legal arguments supporting that claim. 
An appeal which simply repeats or repro­
duces verbatim the pleas in law and argu-
I - 4269 
SUMMARY — CASE C-317/97 Ρ 
ments already submitted to the Court of 
First Instance, including those based on fac­
tual allegations expressly dismissed by that 
Court, does not meet that requirement and is 
thus clearly inadmissible; 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 out­
side the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. 
I - 4270
Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 1998. - Rouhollah Nour v Burgenländische Gebietskrankenkasse. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: ASVG-Landesberufungskommission für das Burgenland - Autriche. - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court. - Case C-361/97.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-03101



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Manifestly irrelevant questions and questions regarding hypothetical problems in a context which precludes any useful answer - Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings - Court's lack of jurisdiction

(EC Treaty, Art. 177)

Summary

The Court cannot give a preliminary ruling where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by a national court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical and the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.

That is the case where questions concerning the interpretation of general principles which form part of Community law have no relation to the purpose of the main action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Intervention - Staff actions - Intervention by an official in an action for annulment brought by another official - Admissibility - Conditions

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)

2 Procedure - Intervention - Interested persons - Dispute having a subject-matter similar to that of another dispute pending before the Court of First Instance - Refusal to grant leave to intervene - Breach of the right to a fair hearing - None

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 93 and 123)

Summary

1 In the case of an application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official, the concept of an interest in the result of the case within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice must be construed as a direct interest in the decision on the claims relating specifically to the act whose annulment is sought.

An application by an official to intervene in an action for annulment brought by another official against a classification decision concerning the latter is thus inadmissible.

2 Where an applicant to intervene is himself a party to an action before the Court of First Instance in which proceedings are stayed pending the decision of the Court of Justice in the case in respect of which he has applied for leave to intervene, the fact that he is refused leave to intervene in that case, which involves a situation or arguments similar to his own, does not prejudice his right to a fair hearing.

The Court's decision in the case before it will not affect the rights which the applicant to intervene will be able to rely on in the case in which he is the applicant and in the context of which he will be able to put forward any arguments which he thinks fit in support of the pleas in law put forward in his application.
Keywords



Keywords

Officials - Actions - Prior administrative complaint - Time-limits - Where a complaint is out of time - Possibility for time to start running afresh - Condition - Existence of a material new fact - No such fact found

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 November 1998. - Appeal brought by Hans-Jürgen Hartmann against an administrative fine. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht Köln - Germany. - Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded between certain Member States under Article 8 of Directive 93/89/EEC - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court. - Case C-162/98.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-07083



Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Jurisdiction of the Court - Limits - Agreement concluded between certain Member States on charges for the use of roads - Exemption - Community directive authorising the conclusion of the agreement - Lack of effect - Reference by the agreement to definitions contained in the directive - Lack of effect in the case of a reference concerning the interpretation of a term not included in those definitions

(EC Treaty, Art. 177; Council Directive 93/89)

Summary

The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Agreement of 9 February 1994 concluded between the Governments of certain Member States on the levying of charges for the use of certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles where the question referred concerns neither the interpretation of the Treaty nor the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community.

It is irrelevant in that regard that the preamble to the Agreement refers to Directive 93/89 on the application of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures, which authorises two or more Member States to cooperate in introducing a common system for user charges, subject to certain conditions in addition to those governing the imposition of such charges where Member States act individually, since the mere fact that the directive authorises Member States to cooperate in that way is not enough to justify the view that an agreement concluded for that purpose forms an integral part of Community law whose interpretation falls within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Nor can such jurisdiction be inferred from the fact that the Agreement refers to certain definitions contained in the directive, inasmuch as those definitions do not include the term forming the subject-matter of the request for interpretation.