ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Actions for annulment of measures ° Time-limits ° Point from which time starts to run ° Decision notified with a general and abstract statement of reasons ° Knowledge of specific reasons ° Obligation to request reasons for the decision within a reasonable period after its existence becomes known

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173, third para.)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Jurisdiction of the Community judicature ° Claim seeking an order to make a payment ° Inadmissible

(EEC Treaty, Art. 173)

3. Social policy ° European Social Fund ° Financial assistance for vocational training programmes ° Decision reducing the amount of assistance originally granted ° Opportunity for the Member State concerned to comment prior to the adoption of the decision ° Essential procedural requirement ° Breach ° Illegality

(Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

Summary

1. Where a Commission decision refusing an undertaking the right to receive the balance of the European Social Fund' s contribution to a vocational training programme and ordering it to reimburse the excess amount already paid out in that connection is expressed in an ordinary letter sent to the relevant national authorities, where the undertaking concerned learned of that decision in correspondence with those authorities and where it contains only an abstract and general statement of reasons, the time within which the undertaking may bring an action for annulment of the decision cannot begin to run until the undertaking has requested, within a reasonable period, such details of the reasons for the decision as are necessary for it to exercise its right of action and has received those details.

2. A claim submitted in the context of an action for annulment, for an order against an institution to pay a sum which is alleged to have been unlawfully refused by the contested decision, is inadmissible. The Community judicature is not entitled, when exercising judicial review of legality, to issue directions to the institutions or to assume the role assigned to them and it is for the administration concerned to take the measures necessary to comply with a judgment delivered in an action for annulment.

3. The opportunity for the relevant Member State to comment before a final decision is taken to reduce assistance granted by the European Social Fund for a vocational training programme, whether as regards the principle of the reduction or as regards its precise amount, is an essential procedural requirement. Non-observance of that requirement, on which individuals have a legitimate interest in relying in the Community courts, renders the decision in question void.

The submission by the relevant Member State of its comments prior to the adoption of the decision must, as an essential procedural requirement, both precede that decision and be established with a sufficient degree of certainty and clarity, which precludes any proof by presumption.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1. Competition ° Transport ° Rules governing competition ° Transport by rail ° Regulation No 1017/68 ° Scope ° Decision of an association of railway undertakings laying down conditions for the accreditation of travel agencies authorized to issue international railway tickets and the conditions of sale of tickets ° Included

(Council Regulation No 1017/68, Arts 1 and 2)

2. Actions for annulment of measures ° Pleas in law ° Breach of an essential procedural requirement ° Error in law involving the application of Regulation No 17 instead of Regulation No 1017/68 in proceedings concerning an infringement of the rules governing competition ° Deprivation of procedural safeguards

(EEC Treaty Art. 173; Council Regulations Nos 17 and 1017/68)

Summary

1. A decision of an association of railway undertakings which lays down conditions for the accreditation of travel agencies authorized to issue international railway tickets and the conditions under which accredited agencies may sell such tickets, in particular as regards the prices to be charged to customers and the commissions which they may receive falls within the scope of Regulation No 1017/68 applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.

The travel agency operations with which such a decision is concerned ° namely the conclusion of contracts of carriage on behalf of a principal and the issuing of tickets ° are related to, and indispensable for, the provision of rail transport services and must be regarded as operations of providers of services ancillary to transport within the meaning of Article 1 of that regulation.

2. There are fundamental differences between Regulation No 17, implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, and Regulation No 1017/68, applying rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway, as regards the notification of agreements, the committees to be consulted by the Commission during the administrative procedure and the role to be played by the Council in that procedure.

The error in law committed by the Commission in adopting a decision concerning an association of undertakings pursuant to Regulation No 17 where Regulation No 1017/68 was applicable consequently amounted to a breach of an essential procedural requirement and had the effect of depriving the association concerned of the procedural safeguards to which it was entitled in the context of Regulation No 1017/68, so that the decision must be annulled.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawful conduct of the institutions - Milk producers deprived of reference quantities under the additional levy scheme following their suspension of deliveries under conversion premium arrangements - Producer not resuming production on expiry of his conversion undertaking - Breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations - None

(EC Treaty, Art. 215, second para. (now Art. 288 EC, second para.); Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84)

Summary

$$The Community cannot be held liable, as a result of the application of Regulation No 857/84 fixing, within the context of the additional levy scheme for milk, the reference quantity for each producer on the basis of the production delivered during a reference year, to a producer who, following an undertaking under Regulation No 1078/77 to convert his herd for a specified period, did not resume milk production after the end of the conversion period, although he was in a position to do so.

While the producer did ask to be allocated a reference quantity several years after that period, he cannot claim to have had a legitimate expectation in the possibility of resuming milk production at some unspecified future date. In the sphere of the common organisations of the market, whose purpose involves constant adjustments to meet changes in the economic situation, economic operators cannot legitimately expect that they will not be subject to restrictions which may arise out of future rules of market or structural policy.

( see paras 37, 41-42 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Measures against which actions may be brought - Measures having binding legal effects - Regulation providing for an offer of flat-rate compensation to milk producers injured by failure to allocate them a reference quantity - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 2187/93)

Summary

Only measures which produce binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

Regulation No 2187/93 is not such a measure and is not amenable to challenge by producers of milk or milk products who have been temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade as a result of the failure to allocate them a reference quantity. The regulation merely provides for the producers concerned to be made an offer of flat-rate compensation acceptance of which is optional and in the event that producers do not accept the offer, they remain in exactly the same position as if the regulation in question had not been adopted in that they retain the right to bring an action for damages under Articles 178 and 215 of the Treaty.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

Acts of the institutions ° Statement of reasons ° Obligation ° Scope ° Commission decision reducing, following a proposal by a Member State, assistance from the European Social Fund for a vocational training programme

(EEC Treaty, Art. 190; Council Regulation No 2950/83, Art. 6(1))

Summary

Although any national authority having competence in the area of the financing of European Social Fund programmes may propose a reduction in the Fund' s financial assistance, it is the Commission which has the power to reduce such assistance, in accordance with Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83, and which assumes, vis-à-vis the recipient of assistance, the legal responsibility for the decision by which its assistance is reduced, irrespective of whether that reduction was or was not proposed by the competent national authority.

Its decision must satisfy the obligation to provide reasons laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty and must therefore clearly show the grounds which justify a reduction of the amount of the assistance initially authorized or, at the very least, refer with sufficient clarity to a measure of the competent national authorities in which those authorities set out clearly the reasons for such a reduction.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action for annulment of a decision confirming a decision not contested within the time-limit - Not admissible - Concept of confirmatory act - Identical decision adopted after re-examination of the situation - Excluded (EC Treaty, Art. 173) 2 Economic and social cohesion - Projects in the field of tourism and the environment - Grant of Community financial assistance - Failure to observe the conditions of funding - Reduction of financial assistance - Proportionality - Breach of the principles of `patere legem quam ipse fecisti' or the protection of legitimate expectations - None 3 Acts of the institutions - Statement of reasons - Obligation - Scope - Commission decision to reduce the amount of Community financial assistance (EC Treaty, Art. 190)

Summary

4 An action for annulment of a decision which merely confirms a previous decision not contested within the time-limit for bringing the proceedings is inadmissible. A decision is merely confirmatory of a previous decision only if it contains no new factor as compared with the previous measure and was not preceded by a re-examination of the circumstances of the person to whom that previous measure was addressed. The step taken by the Commission in organizing a meeting with the person to whom the previous measure was addressed in order to discuss the issues dealt with therein must be regarded as a re-examination, even if that meeting did not reveal any new information and was not such as to prompt the Commission to adopt a different position. 5 In the context of Community financial assistance granted pursuant to a call for proposals, with a view to supporting projects in the field of tourism and the environment for the performance of innovative projects in that field, the obligation to comply with the financial conditions indicated in the decision granting the aid and the obligation actually to carry out the investment constitute essential duties for the beneficiary, and their fulfilment is therefore a condition for the award of Community aid. When, at the deadline for completion of the project, it appears that the results of the work correspond only in part to the project proposed by the beneficiary and subsidized by the Community, the Commission, faced with that inadequate performance, reacts reasonably in refusing to pay the balance of the aid. In those circumstances, the beneficiary cannot successfully rely on either the principle of `patere legem quam ipse fecisti' or the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. 6 A decision reducing the amount of Community financial assistance must clearly show the grounds which justify a reduction of the amount initially authorized, since such a decision has serious consequences for the person receiving the aid. That requirement is satisfied by a decision which refers to a document which is already in the possession of the recipient and contains the reasons on which the institution based its decision, namely by setting out the conditions under which the aid was granted and listing the respects in which performance of the project was defective.
In accordance with the principle of equal treatment, it is necessary to determine the amount of the fines imposed on undertakings which participated in an agreement or a concerted practice contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) according to the same method unless objective justification is put forward which makes it possible not to follow that method.

(see para. 65)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Raw tobacco - Disposal of stocks held by intervention agencies - Commission's discretion - Scope - Consequences

(Commission Regulation No 3389/73)

2 Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Raw tobacco - Disposal of stocks held by intervention agencies - Decision to award a contract - Time-limit - Not observed - Commission not liable except in the event of negligence

(Commission Regulation No 3389/73, Art. 6(1))

3 Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Raw tobacco - Disposal of stocks held by intervention agencies - Guarantee conditions imposed on undertakings taking part in a tendering procedure - Exclusion of undertakings not meeting those conditions - Discrimination - None

(Commission Regulation No 3389/73, Art. 5(1))

Summary

4 In managing the common organization of the market for tobacco, and more particularly with regard to the disposal of tobacco held by intervention agencies, the Commission is required to adopt a commercial approach. It must decide whether or not to accept tenders for lots offered for sale by tender, having regard to all the information in its possession when it makes its decision. It enjoys considerable latitude in that regard since the decisions concerned must balance various factors, such as the prices tendered for the various lots and the costs of storing unsold lots. In those circumstances, even decisions which may subsequently prove to be open to criticism do not necessarily cause the Commission to incur liability in the absence of a manifest error of assessment on its part.

5 Since no sanction is imposed for failure by the Commission to comply with the time-limit for taking decisions to award contracts imposed by Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3389/73 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of tobacco held by intervention agencies, that time-limit cannot be regarded as mandatory and failure to comply with it does not cause the Commission to incur liability unless it is the outcome of negligence on its part.

6 In its management of the common organization of the market for tobacco, the Commission is required in particular to ensure that disposal of tobacco held by intervention agencies does not disturb the market. The Commission's insistence on strict financial guarantees from undertakings wishing to take part in tendering procedures is indicative of the fact that it is properly fulfilling its duty. That requirement necessarily means that undertakings not in a position to meet those conditions are shut out and such an effect, which is inherent in any guarantee condition, does not therefore constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Provision fixing the amount of compensation for sugar storage costs in respect of a particular marketing year - Action brought by Italian sugar manufacturers - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC); Council Regulation No 1534/95, Art. 4)

Summary

$$The action brought by Italian sugar manufacturers for annulment of Article 4 of Regulation No 1534/95 - which fixes the amount of compensation for sugar storage costs in respect of the 1995/96 marketing year - is inadmissible

Article 4 must be regarded as a measure of general application, applying to objectively determined situations and addressed in general terms to categories of persons regarded in the abstract, in so far as it provides for flat-rate reimbursement and applies to an indefinite number of storage operations in the Community carried out by all Community sugar manufacturers.

Even supposing that the Council was aware of the applicants' identity - that is to say, as holders of sugar production quotas - when it adopted the Regulation, that fact is not sufficient to enable them to be regarded as individually concerned. The general application of a measure is not called in question by the fact that it is possible to define more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time, as long as it is established that such application takes effect by virtue of an objective situation of fact or of law defined by the measure in question. Moreover, the fact that a measure may have different specific effects on the various persons to whom it applies is not inconsistent with its nature as a regulation when that situation is objectively defined.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the applicants hold production quotas is not sufficient to establish that their specific rights were adversely affected. The allocation of production quotas was not, prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation, accompanied by an established right that reimbursement would be fixed at an amount which took account of the storage costs which in practice only the Italian sugar producers were required to bear. The producers' legal situation was therefore no different from that of other holders of production quotas, all of whom had to adjust to the amount of the uniform flat-rate reimbursement fixed by the Council for each marketing year.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy - Producers refused a reference quantity because they suspended deliveries under non-marketing or conversion premium arrangements - Offer of flat-rate compensation under Regulation No 2187/93 - Entitlement to default interest on the compensation - Where judicial proceedings pending, payment of interest suspended until notification of discontinuance lodged

(EC Treaty, Art. 215; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 99; Council Regulation No 2187/93, Art. 12)

Summary

In the case of milk producers who were temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade because they had not been allocated a reference quantity exempt from the additional levy by reason of their having entered into non-marketing undertakings, their acceptance of compensation proposed under Regulation No 2187/93 by signing the related receipt, thereby relinquishing all claims, placed them under an obligation to discontinue any actions pending. The Council and the Commission, being the bodies who owed the compensation, were therefore entitled to suspend payment of the default interest provided for in Article 12 of Regulation No 2187/93, so long as the producers in question had not fulfilled their obligation to discontinue any actions.

The crucial date for the purposes of implementing that obligation is not the date on which the national authorities were informed of discontinuance, but the date on which notification of discontinuance, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, is lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Commission decision addressed to a Member State and finding a State aid to be compatible with the common market - Action brought by parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) - Whether admissible - Conditions

(EC Treaty, Art. 93(2) and (3) (now Art. 88(2) and (3) EC), and Art. 173, fourth para. (now, after amendment, Art. 230, fourth para., EC))

2. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Measure affecting the general interests of a category of natural or legal persons - Association representing that category - Inadmissible

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

Summary

1. An action for the annulment of a decision taken by the Commission on the basis of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), brought by a party concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty, is admissible where that person is by his action seeking to safeguard his procedural rights under Article 93(2).

Parties concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty include not only the undertaking or undertakings benefiting from the aid, but those persons, undertakings or associations whose interests might be affected by the grant of the aid, in particular competing undertakings and trade associations. For its action to be admissible, the competitor of the recipient of the aid must demonstrate that its competitive position in the market is affected by the grant of the aid. Where that is not the case, it does not have the status of a party concerned within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the Treaty.

( see paras 37, 40-41 )

2. An association formed for the protection of the collective interests of a category of persons cannot be considered to be individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC), by a measure affecting the general interests of that category, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment on behalf of its members where the latter cannot do so individually.

( see para. 49 )