ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, para., 4)

Summary

Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, two cumulative conditions must be satisfied in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions before the Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer and he must be authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure to comply with them will result in the action being inadmissible.

Therefore, an application lodged by a non-privileged party represented by an agent who, not being enrolled at the bar, is thus not a lawyer within the meaning of Article 19 of the Statute, is inadmissible even if, under national law, that agent may represent the party before all courts.

(see paras 7, 10, 12)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for the adoption of interim measures must be assessed in the light of the extent to which an interlocutory order is necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the adoption of the interim measure. It is for that party to prove that he cannot await the conclusion of the main action without suffering damage of that kind.

In that regard, financial loss, such as that which might arise in the event of exclusion from a tendering procedure, cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation.

(see paras 38-39, 42)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative conditions (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Not relevant – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 44)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 50-52)

Subject of the case

Re:

Suspension of the operation, first, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109)

Summary

‘New facts’ within the meaning of Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure should be taken to mean facts which appear after the order dismissing the first application for interim measures was made or which the applicant was not capable of invoking in the first application or during the proceedings leading to the first order and which are relevant to the assessment of the case in question.

In order for the operation of an act to be suspended or other interim measures to be granted, those facts must be capable of calling into question the assessment by the judge who heard the first application with regard to the conditions which are to be met if the relief is to be granted.

(see paras 54-55)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 27-48

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Information relating to the case

>lt>3

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Anheuser Busch, Inc., to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative conditions (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 40-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

Suspension of the operation, first, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Meaning

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Preparatory measure (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 32-33, 35-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of decisions allegedly contained in two letters from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy of 11 and 23 August 2005, addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic to the European Union, concerning the ineligibility for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund of a measure provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the Region of Piedmont (Italy).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Investire Partecipazioni SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of the interests (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 42-52)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 55-60)

4. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(d)) and 104(3)) (see para. 63)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 81-83, 90, 92)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Resolution of the European Parliament [confidential] to waive the applicant’s immunity from suit, secondly, for interim measures to prevent criminal proceedings being resumed pending final judgment of the Court of First Instance in the main action, thirdly, for an order that the applicant’s anonymity be protected and that there be no publicity in respect of the present application pending the ruling of the Court of First Instance on the main application and the conclusion of any trial before the national court, fourthly, for a direction that the applicant be granted permission to disclose the parties’ written pleadings in the interlocutory proceedings and in the main action to the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom and to the national court hearing the domestic case and, fifthly, for an order that the hearing of the main application be expedited so as to take place as soon as possible.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2006 – Belgium v Commission

(Case T-134/05)

European Social Fund – Recovery by means of set-off against Community debts – Time-bar – Interest for late payment – Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility – Challengeable act – Inadmissible

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 31-43)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 19 January 2005, by which the Commission replied to the letters from the Kingdom of Belgium regarding funds paid to various Belgian bodies under the European Social Fund.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 September 2006 – Athinaïki Techniki v Commission

(Case T-94/05)

Action for annulment – State aid – Complaint – Decision to take no further action on the complaint – Inadmissible

Applications for interim measures – Actionable measures – Measures challengeable by a complainant against State aid (Arts 81 EC, 82 EC, 230, fourth para., EC, and 232, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4, 20, and 25) (see paras 28-33)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 December 2004, informing the applicant of the decision to take no further action on its complaint concerning State aid allegedly granted by the Hellenic Republic to the Hyatt Regency consortium in connection with the Casino Mont Parnès public contract.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

14 May 2007

Case T-199/05

Laura Gnemmi

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2003 appraisal – Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the 2003 appraisal in relation to the applicant and, alternatively, of the applicant’s career development report for that period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis. The applicant is ordered to bear her own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2007 – Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council

(Case T-127/05)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 – Fisheries – Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 – Persons directly and individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 2269/2004 and 2270/2004) (see paras 39-47)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1) and, second, Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 11)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 12)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 13)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 3 of the Commission decision of 5 July 2005 concerning State aid granted to the steel producer Huta Częstochowa SA in Case No C 20/04, and for the joinder of that application with the application for suspension of operation brought by ISD Polska sp. Z o.o.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 44, 47-49, 52-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005, concerning a reduction of the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Decision C (97) 2199, of 27 July 1997, approving assistance from the ERDF for measures provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the region of Piedmont (Italy).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders Investire Partecipazioni SpA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 451/2000, Art. 8(7); Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 43-44, 49-50)

2. Plea of illegality – Incidental nature – Main action inadmissible (Art. 241 EC) (see paras 71-72)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 77-79, 81-82)

4. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request for production of documents (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64(3)(d) and (4) (see paras 86-88)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the opinion of EFSA of 28 July 2006 on the assessment of the active substance carbofuran under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for the damage sustained.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FMC Chemical SPRL, Arysta Lifesciences SAS, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the Commission each to bear their own costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2006 – Lademporiki and Parousis & Sia v Commission

(Case T-92/06)

Non-contractual liability – Financial aid from the EAGGF – Prosecutions and national administrative penalties – Refusal of the Commission to take a position and bring proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part devoid of legal foundation

1. Claim for compensation – Action brought by undertakings prosecuted and subject to administrative penalties for issuing false invoices for the purpose of obtaining Community financial aid (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see para. 25)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 29-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants on account of, first, criminal proceedings brought in Greece against their manager, and, second, the decision of the Commission to take no action on the complaint by Lademporiki, lodged on 29 July 2004.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 384/96, Arts 5(10) and 6(5); Commission Decision No 2006/582) (see paras 23-29)

2. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Unlimited jurisdiction – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible (Arts 229 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 31)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision No 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People’s Republic of China and India (OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders Lemaître Sécurité SAS to pay its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders Associazione nazionale calzaturifici italiani to pay its own costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2007 – Município de Gondomar v Commission

(Case T-324/06 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Withdrawal of financial aid – Cohesion funds – Whether directly concerned – Inadmissibility – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first subpara.) (see para 27)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 12(1)(h); Commission Regulation No 1831/94, Art. 5(2) and (7)) (see paras 34-37, 41, 43, 47)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see paras 45‑46)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-52, 55)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/07 – Redevelopment of Grande Porto/Sul – Subsistema de Gondomar (Portugal) by Commission Decision C (95) 3281 of 18 December 1995.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2007 – Icuna.Com v Parliament

(Case T-383/06 R)

Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a decision – No need to adjudicate

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Order provisionally suspending operation of a European Parliament decision until delivery of the order concluding the interim proceedings – Indication by the Parliament of its intention not to implement that decision further – No need to adjudicate (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 105(2)) (see paras 9-12)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, in substance, suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament dated 1 December 2006 accepting the tender submitted by Mostra and rejecting the applicant’s tender in the context of call for tenders EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/2003 and also of the implementation of any contract entered into with Mostra, pending the decision of the Court in the main action.

Operative part

The Court:

Finds no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008 – 2K‑Teint and Others v Commission and EIB

(Case T-336/06)

Non-contractual liability – Financing contract concluded with Morocco – EIB’s alleged negligence and failures in monitoring a loan financed by the Community budget – Limitation – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 71, 97, 118)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution – Minimum requirements (Art. 288 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 72-73, 81, 86, 117)

3. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions (Arts 230 EC, 232 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 95, 104-105, 108)

4. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration where knowledge of the fact causing the damage was obtained belatedly (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 96-102)

5. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Damage of a continuing nature – Date to be taken into consideration (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 106-107, 113-114)

6. Actions for damages – Reimbursement of costs incurred at national level – Sole jurisdiction of national court applying national law – Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 121)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the EIB’s negligence and failures in monitoring the use of funds intended for the completion of the project of 2K-Teint, in performance of the financing contract concluded between the EIB, as agent of the Community, and the Kingdom of Morocco.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;