ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Reference to the Court - Court or tribunal of a Member State within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty (now Article 234 EC) - Meaning - To be determined on the basis of the body's constitution and role - Role of the Corte dei Conti (Italian Court of Auditors), in the context within which reference was made to the Court, consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action - Not a judicial function

(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC))

Summary

$$The question whether a body may refer a question to the Court falls to be determined on the basis of criteria relating both to the constitution of that body and to its function. Thus, a national body may be classified as `a court or tribunal' within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty when it is performing judicial functions, but when exercising other functions - of an administrative nature, for example - it cannot be recognised as such.

It follows that in order to establish whether a national body, entrusted by law with different categories of function, is to be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, it is necessary to determine in what specific capacity it is acting within the particular legal context in which it seeks a ruling from the Court. For the purposes of that analysis, no relevance is to be attributed to the fact that, when otherwise configured, the body concerned falls to be classified as a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty (even the same entity whose status is in issue, when it is exercising powers other than those in the context of which the reference was made).

The Corte dei Conti (Court of Auditors) is not performing a judicial function - and cannot therefore make a reference to the Court of Justice - when, in the context in which reference was made, it is exercising its powers of ex post facto review which is an administrative role consisting in the evaluation and verification of the results of administrative action.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 November 1998. - Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of the European Communities. - Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded. - Case C-149/98 P.



European Court reports 1998 Page I-07623



Summary



Keywords

Appeals - Grounds - Erroneous assessment of the facts - Inadmissibility

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

Summary

Under Article 168a of the Treaty and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community law - Interpretation - Acts of the institutions - Decision - Reasoning - Taken into consideration

2. Appeals - Grounds - Plea alleging incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Whether the Court may review findings of fact - Possible only where evidence has been fundamentally misconstrued

(Art. 225(1) EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

3. Competition - Dominant position - Collective dominant position - Meaning - Collective entity

(Art. 82 EC)

Summary

1. The operative part of a Commission decision must be read in the light of its reasoning.

( see para. 15 )

2. Pursuant to Article 225(1) EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may rely only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law. The Court does not have jurisdiction to establish the facts. Nor, in principle, does it have the jurisdiction to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance adopted in support of those facts. It is for the Court of First Instance alone to assess the value that should be given to the pieces of evidence produced before it. That assessment does not therefore constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.

( see paras 39, 59 )

3. In order to establish whether the undertakings concerned together constitute a collective entity on a given market, it is necessary to examine the economic links or factors which give rise to a connection between them, and, in particular, whether economic links exist between them which enable them to act together independently of their competitors, their customers and consumers.

( see para. 46 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure Procedure before the Court of First Instance Document mistakenly produced by a party

2. Competition Administrative procedure Investigation of complaints Excessive duration Consequences Action for annulment of the Commission's decision Length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance Excessive duration Consequences

3. Competition Administrative procedure Investigation of complaints Account to be taken of the Community interest in the investigation of a particular case Criteria of assessment

4. Appeals Grounds Plea directed against the decision of the Court of First Instance on costs Inadmissible if all other pleas dismissed

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

Summary

1. The Court of First Instance properly decided that a document whose production had been requested neither by the Court of First Instance nor by one of the parties should be removed from the file and returned to the party which had mistakenly produced it.

( see para. 37 )

2. The excessive amount of time it may have taken to deal with a complaint that the competition rules have been infringed cannot, as a rule, affect the actual content of the final decision adopted by the Commission. It cannot, save in exceptional circumstances, alter the substantive matters which, according to the case, determine whether or not the existence of an infringement of the competition rules is established or give the Commission good reason not to conduct an investigation.

Similarly, as regards the length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance in an action for annulment of a Commission decision, in the absence of any indication that the unreasonable length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, that length of time cannot justify setting aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it rules on the legal characterisation of the facts before that court in the light of the applicable rules.

( see paras 44-46 )

3. The assessment by the Commission of the Community interest presented by a complaint that the competition rules have been infringed depends on the circumstances of each case. Accordingly, the number of criteria of assessment the Commission may refer to should not be limited, nor conversely should it be required to have recourse exclusively to certain criteria.

( see para. 67 )

4. Where all the other pleas in an appeal have been rejected, a plea concerning the alleged illegality of a decision of the Court of First Instance as to costs must be rejected as inadmissible under the second paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, which provides that no appeal is to lie regarding only the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them.

( see para. 77 )
Keywords



Keywords

1. Appeals - Interest in bringing proceedings - Appeal likely to procure an advantage to the party bringing it

2. Appeals - Grounds - Incorrect assessment of the facts - Inadmissible - Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of evidence - Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 225 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51, first para.)

3. Appeals - Grounds - Plea directed against a ground of the judgment which was not necessary to support the operative part thereof - Plea ineffectual

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

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation laying down the conditions under which information may be supplied from computerised reservation systems - Action by vendors of computerised reservation systems - Inadmissible

(Art. 230 EC, fourth para; Council Regulation No 2299/89, Art. 6(1)(b)(v), as amended by Regulation No 323/1999)

Summary

1. The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question. In that regard, Article 6(1)(b)(v) of Regulation No 2299/89, inserted by Regulation No 323/1999, on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems which lays down the conditions under which a system vendor may supply statistical or other information from its computerised reservation system is of concern to the appellants in their objective capacity as system vendor, in the same way as any other current or future system vendor in the same position and the other traders on the relevant market, such as airlines or subscribers who were also covered by the provision by reason of their objective capacity. For that reason, the provision is drafted in general and abstract terms by Regulation No 2299/89, as amended by Regulation No 323/1999, that is to say, it defines the categories of traders to which it applies, without reference to the specific situation of certain traders.

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.

( see paras 38-39, 41 )

2. The appraisal by the Court of First Instance of the evidence put before it - such as evidence relating to the question whether the appellants were affected by the contested provision by reason of a collection of attributes which differentiate them from any other trader to whom the provision applies, or whether serious consequences resulted from the implementation of the provision in question, which were such as to distinguish them from any other trader to whom it applied - does not constitute, save where the clear sense of that evidence has been distorted, a point of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice in an appeal.

( see paras 46-47, 55-56 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Application made in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court

(Arts 234 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 83)

2. Community law - Direct effect - Primacy - Action brought before the national court in order to establish a breach of Community law resulting from national law - Breach still to be established - Application for interim measures - Obligations and powers of the national court seised

(Arts 10 EC and 234 EC)

Summary

1. In the context of the preliminary ruling procedure, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for interim relief. Under Articles 242 EC and 243 EC and Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain in interlocutory proceedings, first, applications for suspension of the operation of an act challenged by means of an action brought before it and, second, for other interim measures requested by a party in a case before it and which relate to that case. Those articles do not apply to the preliminary ruling procedure, which is based on a clear division of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, which only has jurisdiction to rule on the interpretation and validity of the Community provisions the application of which is at issue in a dispute before a national court, the resolution of the dispute being a matter for that court alone.

As a result of the substantial difference between contentious proceedings and the incidental procedure provided for in Article 234 EC, it is therefore not possible, in the absence of an express provision, to extend to that procedure the rules prescribed exclusively for contentious proceedings.

(see paras 6-8, 10)

2. It is for the national courts, pursuant to the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC, to ensure the legal protection which persons derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law. In particular, as a matter of Community law, national courts have to be able to grant interim relief when seised of applications based on Community law and the interim legal protection which Community law ensures for individuals before national courts must remain the same, irrespective of whether they contest the compatibility of national legal provisions with Community law or the validity of secondary Community law

(see paras 11-12)
Keywords



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings - Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court's existing case-law - Application of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure

(Art. 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice)

2. Acts of the institutions - Directives - Direct effect - Limits - Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual - Excluded - Implementation by Member States - Obligations of national courts

(Art. 249 EC, third para.)
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

25 February 2003

((Freedom of establishment – Freedom of movement for workers – Public undertaking – Requirement to make notification of the hiring of workers – Inadmissibility))

and

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Legal background

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

R. Grass C.W.A. Timmermans
Keywords



Keywords

Preliminary rulings — Withdrawal by the national court of the questions referred to the Court — Removal from the register — (Art. 234 EC)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Preliminary rulings - Admissibility - Questions not providing sufficient explanation of the factual and legislative context - Questions submitted in a context which precludes a useful reply

(Art. 234 EC; EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 20)

Summary

$$The need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary for the referring court to define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those questions are based. It is also essential for the national court at least to give some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and on the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute. In this connection, the information provided in orders for reference do not serve merely to enable the Court to give helpful answers, but also to enable the governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations in accordance with Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. It is the Court's duty to ensure that that possibility is safeguarded, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the order for reference is notified to the interested parties.

( see paras 14-16 )
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers ' organisations — Imposition of membership fees on non-member producers of organic products — Principle of non-discrimination — Producers in a situation objectively different from that of the members — Assessment by national courts — (Council Regulation No 1035/72, Art. 15b(1) and (8))

Summary

Article 15b(1) and (8) of Regulation No 1035/72 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, as amended by Regulation No 3284/83, is to be interpreted in the following manner:

─ a Member State which has applied Article 15b(1), by making certain production and marketing rules laid down by a producers ' organisation mandatory for producers who are established in the district of that organisation and who are not members of it, may not, without infringing the principle of non-discrimination, apply Article 15b(8) by making them liable for all or part of the fees paid by member producers, without determining whether those non-member producers, whether or not they are part of a production sector regulated by law, such as the organic production sector, are in a situation objectively different from that of the member producers;

─ non-member producers are in a situation objectively different from that of the member producers when the rules adopted by that organisation do not apply or apply only marginally to their products and the actions undertaken by the organisation are of no benefit or only of marginal benefit to those products;

─ it is for the national courts to assess the evidence presented on this point.

see para. 30, operative part
Case C-164/02





Kingdom of the Netherlands

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Aid for the processing of dredging silt – Measure notified to and authorised by the Commission – Action for annulment – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court (First Chamber), 28 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision declaring a system of aid notified compatible with the common market – No distinct change in the situation of a Member State which requested an assessment of the legality of that system of aid – Not possible to bring an action for annulment against such a decision

(Arts 87 EC, 88 EC and 230 EC)

2.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Grounds of a decision – Excluded

(Art. 230 EC)

1.

2.
ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

24 July 2003

((Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure – Answer which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law – Second Directive 84/5/EEC – Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles – Types of civil liability – Minimum amounts of cover))

and

THE COURT (First Chamber),

the national court having been informed that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice having been invited to submit any observations they may have on that proposal, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following

Order

1

2

Community legislation

3

4

1.

2.

─ in the case of personal injury, 350 000 ECU where there is only one victim; where more than one victim is involved in a single claim, this amount shall be multiplied by the number of victims,

─ in the case of damage to property 100 000 ECU per claim, whatever the number of victims.

5

1.

2.

3.

(a)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

R. Grass M. Wathelet
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Time-limits for bringing an action – Proceedings instituted by facsimile – Time-limit for lodging the signed original – Starting-point – Date of receipt of the fax and not date of expiry of the time-limit for instituting proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43(6) and 102(2); Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(5))

2. Procedure – Time-limits for bringing an action – Lapse of rights – Force majeure – Concept – Limits – Specific case

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45)

Summary

1. It follows from the wording of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance by fax is taken into consideration, for the purposes of compliance with the procedural time-limits, only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Accordingly, with regard to an action brought against the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), that time-limit of 10 days begins to run from the date receipt of the fax and not the date of expiry of the period of two months and ten days arising from the provisions of Article 63(5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, in conjunction with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. In particular, where the fax is received more than 10 days before the expiry of the time-limit fixed for bringing an action before the Court of First Instance, the provisions of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance do not extend that time-limit.

(see paras 17-18)

2. The concept of ‘force majeure’, within the meaning of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice on time-limits for bringing an action, contains both an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the person in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on that person’s part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the person concerned must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits. Thus, the concept of force majeure does not apply to a situation in which, objectively, a diligent and prudent person would have been able to take the necessary steps before the expiry of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings.

Such is the case where an applicant increased the likelihood that his application would arrive out of time at the Community Court by having allowed a number of days to elapse after sending a copy of the signed original of the application by fax before entrusting that original, not directly to the postal service, but to an intermediary undertaking, which itself waited some days before sending that document by registered letter to the Registry of that Court.

(see paras 25-26)