ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

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

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Factors to be taken into account

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

Summary

3 The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in relation to fees.

Since Community law does not contain provisions on fee scales, the Court must freely consider the circumstances at issue, having regard to the subject-matter and nature of the dispute and its significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as to the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by it for the lawyer and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

The ability of the Community judicature to assess the amount of work generated by the case for the lawyers and the value of the work carried out is dependent on the accuracy of the information provided in that regard by the parties.

4 The significance of a case from the point of view of Community law by reason of the new and important questions of law and the complex questions of fact which it raises may justify, first, high fees and, secondly, a party's being represented by a number of lawyers.

Since the Court takes account, in fixing the recoverable costs, of all the circumstances of the case up to the date of its decision, there is no need to give a ruling on either a claim for interest for late payment or the costs incurred in relation to proceedings for the taxation of costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Application for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Judgment of the Court of First Instance appealed against - Application to the Court of First Instance - Inadmissible

(Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Art. 53; EEC Treaty, Art. 185)

Summary

Since an appeal brought before the Court of Justice against a decision of the Court of First Instance has no suspensory effect, as is apparent from Article 53 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, it is incumbent on a party wishing to secure suspension of the effects of a judgment of the Court of First Instance against which he has brought an appeal to submit an application to the Court of Justice to that effect pursuant to Article 185 of the Treaty.
Keywords



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Subject-matter ° Issue of directions to the administration ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Prior administrative complaint ° Time-limits ° Matter of public policy ° Action brought before complaint rejected ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Officials ° Actions ° Action for damages ° Pleas in law ° Legality of a decision of the appointing authority not challenged within the time-limit ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

4. Officials ° Actions ° Action for damages brought without the pre-litigation procedure prescribed by the Staff Regulations having been followed ° Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Time-limit for bringing proceedings ° Application for legal aid ° Lodging of the application without the assistance of a lawyer within the time prescribed for bringing proceedings but prior to the initiation of proceedings ° Suspension of the time-limit for bringing proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 94)

Summary

The lodging of an application for legal aid without the assistance of a lawyer, within the time prescribed for bringing proceedings but prior to the initiation of proceedings, prevents time from running until the applicant is served with the order of the Court.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Officials ° Actions ° Prior complaint through official channels ° Existence of an act adversely affecting an official ° Obligation to submit a complaint directly ° Time-limits ° Matter of public policy

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Officials ° Actions ° Act adversely affecting an official ° Definition ° Act directly and immediately affecting the legal situation of the person concerned

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

3. Officials ° Actions ° Prior complaint through official channels ° Distinction in relation to a request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations ° Distinction a matter for the Court' s assessment

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1) and (2))

Summary

1. The time-limits laid down for submitting complaints and bringing actions are a matter of public policy and, even where the administration has replied at the pre-litigation stage to the arguments put forward by the complainant, the Court is not exempted from the obligation to verify whether the action is admissible from the point of view of the observance of time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations.

An official wishing to seek annulment, amendment or withdrawal of a decision adversely affecting him must submit a complaint directly against that decision, and the right of every official under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations to request the administration to take a decision relating to him does not enable him to disregard the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations for submitting a complaint and bringing an action.

2. A decision which is adopted in response to a request by an official and which shows beyond doubt that the administration intended to refuse the official an allowance under the Staff Regulations by clearly referring to the provisions on which the refusal was based constitutes an act adversely affecting that person in so far as it directly and immediately affects his legal situation.

3. The categorization of a letter or a memorandum as a "request" or a "complaint" is a matter for the Court alone and not for the parties.

A memorandum in which an official clearly manifests an intention to challenge a decision of the administration refusing him an allowance under the Staff Regulations, asks the administration to state the reasons for the decision and seeks precise particulars concerning the calculations used by the administration as a basis for the refusal, constitutes a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The request for a statement of reasons can be regarded at most as the expression of an allegation that no reasons were given for the decision of refusal and the request for information cannot constitute a separate request for the purposes of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. It is one of the complaints formulated against the decision of refusal, even though, in rejecting the complaint, the administration acknowledged that the request was justified and asked the applicant to contact the relevant authority for the particulars sought.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Actionable measures ° Definition ° Measures having binding legal effects ° Communication addressed by the Commission to the authorities of a Member State, requesting them to recover uncollected sums or sums wrongly paid under the common agricultural policy

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

Only a measure whose legal effects are binding on the applicant and are capable of affecting his interests is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. That is not the position in the case of a communication addressed by the Commission to the authorities of a Member State following an inquiry in which it has taken part, requesting them to undertake, first, the recovery of certain aid granted to an undertaking under the rules established by a common organization of the market in agricultural products but which the Commission has found to be unlawful and, second, the recovery of certain import duties which the undertaking was liable to pay.

As regards both the recovery of aid wrongly paid under the common agricultural policy and the post-clearance recovery of uncollected import duties, it is for the Member States to enforce the Community regulations and to take the necessary individual decisions regarding the traders concerned, in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down by national legislation, subject to the limits imposed by Community law. Since it is only those decisions which produce binding legal effects capable of prejudicing the interests of those traders, it is for the latter, if they consider that they have sufficient grounds, to have recourse to the remedies available to them under national law in order to contest them before the national courts.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

20 May 1994

Case T-510/93

Dieter Obst

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Inadmissibility — Act adversely affecting an official’

Full text in German II-461

Application for:

Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's candidature and for an order that the defendant notify to the applicant a reply giving reasons for the decision.

Decision:

Application dismissed.

Abstract of the Judgment

After examining six applications, including that of the applicant, submitted in response to publication of a vacancy notice, the Commission decided at an early stage that it could not fill the post in question and subsequently republished an identical vacancy notice. Seven candidates, including six original candidates of whom the applicant was one, submitted applications.

The applicant then lodged a complaint against the ‘implied rejection’ of his initial application.

After examining the second round of applications, the Commission appointed Mr X to the vacant post and informed the applicant that, in accordance with its decision, he had been unsuccessful. The applicant lodged a further complaint, followed by an action (Case T-562/93).

Admissibility

The Court takes the view that the Commission cannot be accused of misusing its powers for judging it necessary to increase the number of candidates and republish the vacancy notice, and considers that the applications submitted in response to the first publication remained valid during the examination of the seven applications which followed the second. The second publication does not therefore imply any decision on the first round of applications and cannot in any way be regarded as an implied decision to reject those applications or to close the procedure for filling the post. The procedure was not closed until the decision to appoint Mr X to the vacant post, which is the only act that adversely affects the applicant in that it is capable of directly affecting his legal position. The pleas in law for annulment must therefore be held inadmissible (paragraphs 24, 25 and 26).

The Court also dismisses as inadmissible the applicant's claim that the Commission should be ordered to provide him with a reasoned reply to his first application because, in the first place, the Community judicature cannot issue directions to a Community institution without encroaching upon the prerogatives of the administrative authority and, secondly, in the absence of an act adversely affecting the applicant the Commission is under no obligation to give him reasons (paragraph 27).

See: T-15/91 Bollendorff v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1679, para. 57

Operative part:

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Meaning - Involvement of more than one lawyer

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

3 The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. It follows that the Court is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement concluded in that regard.

In the absence of Community provisions laying down fee scales, the Court must make an unfettered assessment of the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the lawyer involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

4 Where a dispute presents particular difficulties, the remuneration of more than one lawyer may be regarded as falling within the ambit of `expenses necessarily incurred', within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Measures against which actions may be brought ° Refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations ° Excluded

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 173)

2. Actions against Community institutions for failure to act ° Natural or legal persons ° Failures to act against which actions may be brought ° Failure to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Arts 169 and 175, third para.)

3. Procedure ° Actions brought by a natural or legal person to obtain an order requiring the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil Treaty obligations ° Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 164 et seq.)

Summary

1. An action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person contesting a decision by the Commission not to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty is inadmissible.

2. An action for failure to act brought by a natural or legal person seeking to obtain a declaration that, by refraining from initiating proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty, the Commission has failed, in breach of the Treaty, to adopt a decision, is inadmissible.

Natural or legal persons may bring proceedings before the Court by virtue of the third paragraph of Article 175 only in order to obtain a declaration of a failure, in breach of the Treaty, to adopt acts of which those persons are the potential addressees. Under the infringement procedure governed by Article 169, the only measures which the Commission may be induced to take are addressed to the Member States.

3. The Community judicature cannot address orders to a Community institution without encroaching on the rights and powers of the administrative authorities. It follows that an action brought by a natural or legal person seeking an order that the Commission initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under the Treaty is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Actions for annulment of measures ° Natural and legal persons ° Measures of direct and individual concern to them ° Decision granting financial assistance to actions for the protection of habitats and nature addressed to the Member States ° Farmers and associations thereof in a region concerned ° Not admissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, para. 4; Council Regulation No 1973/92)

Summary

A decision addressed to certain Member States, the purpose of which is the award, pursuant to Regulation No 1973/92, of financial assistance for actions for the protection of habitat and nature, takes the form, with regard to farmers in the region concerned by one of those actions, of a measure of general application which applies to situations determined objectively and produces legal effects with regard to categories of persons viewed generally and in the abstract. They are not affected by the decision by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons, and by virtue of these factors distinguished individually just as in the case of the person addressed, and hence it is not of individual concern to them within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

The fact that an association represents a category of traders does not entitle it to regard itself as being individually concerned by a measure affecting the general interests of that category; since the said decision does not affect them otherwise, the associations to which the farmers in the region in question belong are not individually concerned by the said decision either. Moreover it is of no avail for either farmers or associations to claim that they are distinguished individually on the ground that they should have been consulted prior to the adoption of the decision, since no such obligation to consult is laid down in the relevant Community provisions.

In view of the inadmissibility of the action brought by the farmers and their associations for annulment of the decision, an action brought against the contract implementing the decision, concluded by the Commission and the Member State in which the region concerned is located, to determine the procedures for the grant of assistance and the conditions to be complied with by the recipients is also a fortiori inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Concept - Factors to be taken into consideration - Travel and subsistence expenses of persons other than the parties' lawyers - Fees of an economist - Conditions for reimbursement

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

The Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but it may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs. Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Community judicature must assess, in its discretion, the relevant features of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the agents or advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings.

Travel and subsistence expenses incurred by persons other than the lawyer of the applicant in question are recoverable only if the presence of those persons was necessary for the purpose of the proceedings. So far as the fees of an economist engaged by an applicant are concerned, such fees can be regarded as necessary expenses only if the involvement of the economist was necessary.

In view of the fact that, in fixing the recoverable costs, the Community judicature takes into account all the circumstances of a case up to the date on which it makes its ruling, it is unnecessary to make a separate ruling on the expenses incurred by the parties for the purpose of the proceedings on taxation of costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation ° Suspension of operation of a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty ° Conditions for granting ° Specific nature of the damage ° Provision of security

(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 pursuant to Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance 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 seeking such relief. Damage of a purely financial nature cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even as being reparable only with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation. Where the application is for suspension of the operation of an anti-dumping regulation, it is not sufficient to rely on the effects inherent in the imposition of the duty in question, namely a rise in the price of the product affected by the duty and a corresponding decrease in the share of the Community market, since the very purpose of an anti-dumping duty is to offset the dumping margin found to exist by increasing the price of the product in question; it must at the very least be possible to adduce evidence that failure to grant suspension would jeopardize the applicant' s survival or irreversibly affect its position on the market.

In any event, the Court hearing an application for interim relief could grant the suspension applied for only subject to the provision of security by the applicant in the amount due from it under the contested anti-dumping regulation, since the Court' s assessment of the legality of that regulation cannot be sufficiently certain.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Procedure ° Time-limits ° Intervention ° Time-barred ° Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure ° Concept

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 42, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115(1))

Summary

The period within which an application to intervene must be made, set at three months from the publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities of the notice relating to the lodging of the application initiating proceedings by Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, is mandatory and observance thereof, as in the case of procedural time-limits in general, is a matter of public policy which the Court must raise of its own motion.

For there to exist unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 42 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice there must exist abnormal difficulties which are independent of the will of the party concerned and appear unavoidable even if all due care is taken. Neither the complexity of procedures or the slowness of internal communications constitute such circumstances. In particular, a party may not rely on the malfunctioning of its own departments.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Applications for interim measures ° Suspension of operation of a measure ° Suspension of operation of a decision imposing a fine ° Conditions for granting an application ° Provision of a guarantee ° Permissibility ° Limits ° Exceptional circumstances

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

Summary

It is only in exceptional circumstances that the judge hearing an application for interim measures should order the suspension of the applicant undertaking' s obligation to provide a bank guarantee securing payment of a fine imposed on it.

The risk of court-ordered liquidation which the recovery of the fine or the provision of a bank guarantee might entail cannot be regarded as a circumstance giving rise to urgency, where the undertaking is subject to a procedure for the reorganization of undertakings in difficulty during the currency of which it cannot be wound up; in any event, that is to say, even if liquidation were not out of the question, it does not appear, having regard to the very substantial indebtedness of the undertaking, of which the debt due to the Commission represents only a minute proportion, and to the claims of the other creditors, that the adoption by the Commission of enforcement measures as provided for in Article 192 of the Treaty would in itself be liable to trigger such a result.

Moreover, as regards the balance of the interests concerned, a financial situation as burdened with debt as that of the applicant necessitates the provision of guarantees designed to protect the financial interests of the Community.