ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of a decision in the field of competition - Conditions for granting - Prima facie case - Serious and irreparable damage - Balance of interests - Effect of a discrepancy in the application of the competition rules as between the national courts and the Commission

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

Summary

The urgency of an application for suspension must be assessed in relation to the necessity to give an interim judgment in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage being occasioned to the party seeking suspension. In that regard, it is sufficient that the damage, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

Where the Commission has adopted a decision in which an exclusivity requirement contained in distribution agreements is held to constitute an infringement of the competition rules in the Treaty, any changes to the distribution system as a result of the revocation of the exclusivity requirement entailed by immediate execution of that decision are serious and irreparable, where the products are of a predominantly seasonal nature, inasmuch as competitors will make every effort to sell their products through outlets which had previously been less readily accessible. In such a situation, if the decision in question were to be annulled, the financial losses would be extremely difficult to quantify for the purposes of making reparation, in the light of unpredictable variations in sales of such products and, moreover, there are serious grounds for believing that the market developments to which immediate execution of the decision is likely to give rise would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse subsequently if the application in the main action were to be upheld.

Account must also be taken, when examining the application for suspension, of the fact that the question whether the same exclusivity requirement is lawful under the competition rules in the Treaty has also been raised in the national courts and that there is, prima facie, a contradiction between the views of the Commission and those of the national courts in the application of those rules.

Where the requirement relating to a prima facie case is met, the balance of interests inclines in favour of suspending execution of the decision in question where its immediate execution would entail the danger not only of causing the applicant serious and irreparable damage but also of furthering a situation of legal uncertainty as a result of a contradiction between the views of the Commission and those of the national courts in their application of the Treaty provisions.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

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

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 EC); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Suspension of operation of the obligation to lodge a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing the immediate recovery of a fine - Conditions for granting - Exceptional circumstances - Situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs to be taken into account

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now Arts 242 EC and 243 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 urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for. Those requirements are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of operation must be dismissed if one of them is not met. Where necessary, the court hearing an application for interim relief also balances the interests at stake.

2 An application for suspension of operation of a measure, the object of which is to obtain dispensation from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for a fine not being recovered immediately, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

In order to assess the applicant's ability to provide a bank guarantee without jeopardising its existence, account should also be taken of the group of undertakings to which it belongs directly or indirectly, particularly with regard to the possibility of providing the security which the banks might require.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

24 January 2000

Case T-179/98

José Cuenda Guijarro and Others

v

Council of the European Union

‛Officials — Interest in bringing action — General and abstract interest — Act adversely affecting an official — None — Manifest inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-1

Application for:

annulment of the decision of the Council of 12 January 1998 rejecting, first, the applicants' request regarding certain measures to be taken in relation to safety, health protection and respect for the environment at the workplace in respect of the Council's ‘Justus Lipsius’ Building in Brussels and, second, the claim for compensation for the nonmaterial harm which they consider they have sustained owing to the faults, inefficiency and negligence of the institution in respect of the state of that building.

Held:

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay one half of the defendant's costs. The defendant shall bear one half of its costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing an action — Requirement that claims put forward by an official must relate to him personally (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Refusal to appoint an expert to examine a Community building — Exclusion (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 1998. - Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities. - Admissibility. - Case T-100/98 R.



European Court reports 1998 Page 0000



Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Publication by the Commission, for information purposes, of a fact-sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and qualifications in medical practice - Fault on the part of the Commission - None

(EC Treaty, Art, 215, second para.)

Summary

There is manifestly no foundation in law in the case of an application brought by a national of a Member State holding general and specialist qualifications in medicine, gained in that State, seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission's publication of a fact-sheet concerning the recognition of diplomas and qualifications for general and specialist medical practitioners which, in the view of the applicant, inadequately reflects the rules applicable to specialist medical practitioners in the aforementioned Member State.

No finding of fault can be made against the Commission where the fact-sheet contains, for persons who wish to obtain recognition of their diploma or qualifications, a general overview of the applicable Community law, a list of the Community and national legislative instruments in force and a list of useful addresses, accompanied by a disclaimer warning that such guidance as is given on Community law is for information purposes only.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the fact-sheet cannot, by reason of its nature and content, have any effect as regards the rules applicable to specialist medical practitioners trained and established in a particular Member State, the applicant is in no position to invoke any personal damage arising out of the information published by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 29 September 1999. - J.G. Evans and Others v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Lateness - Inadmissibility. - Joined cases T-148/98 and T-162/98.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02837



Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Time-limits for bringing proceedings - Mandatory - Time-barred - Excusable error - Meaning

(ECSC Treaty, Art. 33)

2 Procedure - Requirement as to the facts to be adduced - Facts adduced must be specific and detailed

Summary

1 The period prescribed for bringing an action for annulment is mandatory and is not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice. The notion of excusable error by virtue of which it may be possible to obtain an extension of the mandatory time-limit concerns only exceptional circumstances in which, in particular, the conduct of the institution concerned has been, either alone or to a decisive extent, such as to give rise to a pardonable confusion in the mind of the party concerned.

2 A party may only put forward, in support of its claims, facts which are sufficiently specific and detailed for the Court to regard them, at the very least, as credible and to enable the opposing party to contest them in an effective manner and, if appropriate, to submit evidence in rebuttal. That requirement as to the facts to be adduced, which relates to matters known only to the applicants, ensures that the Court does not come to rule on circumstances which are purely theoretical or are contrived solely for the purposes of the action.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage which may be imminent - Meaning - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now 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 interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking the measures to prove that he cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering harm of that nature.

To be able to determine whether the harm which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, suspending the operation of a decision, the court hearing the application must have hard evidence allowing it to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail. However, it does not have to be established with absolute certainty that the harm invoked is imminent. It is sufficient that the harm, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Provision of the Treaty establishing the European Community - Not an actionable measure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Subject-matter of the dispute to be indicated - Pleas in law relied upon to be briefly stated

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1 A Treaty provision is not an act of a Community institution within the meaning of Article 4 of the Treaty (now Article 7 EC) or Article 173 thereof (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC); consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction to annul it.

2 Pursuant to Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendants to prepare their defence and the Court to adjudicate on the action, where necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, for an action to be admissible, the essential matters of fact and law on which it is based must be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Requirements as to form - Subject-matter of the dispute to be indicated - Pleas in law relied upon to be briefly stated

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, first para., and Art. 46, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d))

Summary

$$Under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 46 of the same statute, and under Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application must contain, amongst other things, the subject-matter of the dispute, the forms of order sought and a brief statement of the pleas in law. Irrespective of any question of terminology, the particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare the defence, and the Court of First Instance to rule on the application without having to request further information, as the case may be. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic matters of law and fact relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.

( see paras 18-19 )
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action contesting a decision - Implied withdrawal of the contested decision while proceedings are before the Court - Withdrawal producing effects equivalent to those of a judgment annulling a measure - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(Art. 230 EC)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 1 June 1999. - Karl L. Meyer v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities. - Manifest inadmissibility. - Case T-73/99.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-01739



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Provision of the Treaty establishing the European Community - Not an actionable measure

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

2 Procedure - Application initiating proceedings - Procedural requirements - Subject-matter of the dispute to be indicated - Pleas in law relied upon to be briefly stated

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1 A Treaty provision is not an act of a Community institution within the meaning of Article 4 of the Treaty (now Article 7 EC) or Article 173 thereof (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC); consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction to annul it.

2 Pursuant to Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. That statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendants to prepare their defence and the Court to adjudicate on the action, where necessary without any other supporting information. In order to ensure legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, for an action to be admissible, the essential matters of fact and law on which it is based must be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.
Case T-270/99

Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas

v

Council of the European Union

‛Application for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern — Council decision under the third subparagraph of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now the third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC) — Inadmissibility’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), 11 September 2001 II-2403

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Council decision addressed to a Member State declaring aid consisting of the assumption by that Member State of debts owed by a number of cooperatives and agricultural businesses to a bank to be compatible with the common market — Action brought by persons who are engaged in vocational training in an agricultural region and have taken out a loan with that bank — Inadmissible

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

Applicants who merely claim that they are engaged in vocational training in an agricultural region, thus contributing to its economic and cultural development, and that as a result of that activity they took out a loan from a bank which they have been unable to repay cannot claim to be individually concerned by a Council decision addressed to a Member State declaring aid consisting of the assumption by that Member State of debts owed by a number of cooperatives and agricultural businesses to a bank in that Member State to be compatible with the common market. Those circumstances alone are inadequate to differentiate the applicants from any other insolvent debtor of the bank engaged in an economic activity in an agricultural area of that State whose name does not appear on the list of recipients of the aid in question.

(see paras 27-28)
Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 16 July 1999. - Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the European Communities. - Procedure for interim relief - Urgency. - Case T-143/99 R.



European Court reports 1999 Page II-02451



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim relief - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage which may be imminent - Meaning - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Arts 185 and 186 (now 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 interim measures must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interim order to prevent serious and irreparable harm to the party applying for those measures. It is for the party seeking the measures to prove that he cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering harm of that nature.

To be able to determine whether the harm which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable and therefore provides grounds for, exceptionally, suspending the operation of a decision, the court hearing the application must have hard evidence allowing it to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail. However, it does not have to be established with absolute certainty that the harm invoked is imminent. It is sufficient that the harm, particularly when it depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, should be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.
The rule contained in the first subparagraph of Article 104(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that an application to suspend the operation of any measure is to be admissible only if the applicant is challenging that measure in proceedings before the Court of First Instance is not a mere formality but is based on the premiss that the main action to which the application for interim measures relates can in fact be considered by the Court of First Instance.

Although the issue of the admissibility of the main action should not be examined in proceedings for interim relief so as not to prejudge the substance of the case, it may prove necessary, where it is contended that the main action to which the application for interim relief relates is manifestly inadmissible, to establish whether there are any grounds for concluding that the main action is prima facie admissible.

(see paras 13-14)

See: T-1/00 R Hölzl and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-251, para. 21, and the case-law cited
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable damage - Decision withdrawing authorisation for the marketing of medicinal products for human use which contain amfepramone

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2))

2. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Balancing of all the interests involved - Precedence to be given to protection of public health over economic considerations - Limits - Decision withdrawing authorisation for the marketing of medicinal products for human use which contain amfepramone

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

Summary

1. The urgency of an application for suspension of the operation of a measure must be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking suspension. In this connection, it is enough, particularly where damage depends on the occurrence of a number of factors, for that damage to be foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability.

With regard to a Commission decision withdrawing authorisations for the marketing of medicinal products for human use which contain amfepramone, the damage which immediate operation of the contested decision could cause, namely the definitive loss of the applicant's position in the market, would be serious and irreparable.

( see paras 44, 47 )

2. Where, on an application for suspension of the operation of a measure, the judge hearing the application balances the various interests involved, he must determine whether later annulment of the contested measure by the Court when ruling on the main application would allow the situation which would have been brought about by the immediate operation of the measure to be reversed, and, conversely, whether suspension of operation of the measure would prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application being dismissed.

In this connection, while the requirements of the protection of public health must be given precedence over economic considerations, mere reference to the protection of public health cannot exclude an examination of the circumstances of the case, in particular of the relevant facts. Suspension of operation of the Commission's decision of 9 March 2000 withdrawing marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human use which contain amfepramone must therefore be granted, since the Commission has not shown that the protective measures it adopted in the contested decision were not manifestly excessive.

( see paras 49, 52-54, operative part )