ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

31 July 2002

Case T-191/02 R

Giorgio Lebedef

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure for interim relief — Framework agreement of 1974 between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations — Termination — Admissibility — Prima facie case’

Full text in French II-741

Application for:

suspension of the operation of the Commission's decision of 5 December 2001 by which, inter alia, it terminated the framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations between the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations, and adopted the Operational rules concerning the consultation levels, body and procedures' agreed between the Commission and the majority of the trade unions and staff associations on 19 January 2000.

Held:

The application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials — Rights and obligations — Trade-union law — Relations between the administration and the trade unions and staff associations — Right to terminate a framework agreement in the absence of any express provisions on termination

The issue of the admissibility of the main action must not as a matter of principle be examined in a procedure for interim relief, but must be reserved for the examination of the main application, unless it is apparent at first sight that the latter is manifestly inadmissible. To rule on admissibility at the interlocutory stage where an application is not, at first sight, clearly inadmissible would be tantamount to prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance on the main action. (see para. 20) See: T-196/98 R Peña Abizando and Others v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-5 and II-15, para. 10, and the case-law cited; T-208/00 R Barleycorn Mongolite and Boixader Rivas v Parliament and Council [2000] ECRSC I-A-209 and II-941, para. 13

Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that an application for an interim measure must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension of the operation of a measure must be dismissed if any one of them is absent. (see para. 21) See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECRSC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18

Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that the official concerned is afforded the most extensive interim judicial protection. It follows that an application for interim measures made under that provision may be lodged at any time within the period of four months from the date of submission of the complaint. (see para. 57)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — (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 relief, required by Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, must be assessed in relation to the need to make an interim order so as to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the applicant. It is not sufficient merely to allege that the measure whose suspension is being sought is about to be put into effect; circumstances must be adduced that are capable of establishing a case of urgency and showing that, without an order suspending operation of the measure, serious and irreparable damage would be caused to the applicant.

Moreover, lodging the application for interim relief several months after the main action was brought, whereas the circumstances have not changed since it was brought, is a factor which tends to suggest that the suspension being sought is not urgent.

see paras 14-15, 17
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)

31 March 2003

Case T-227/02

André Hecq

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Action for annulment — Time-limits — Inadmissibility’

Full text in French II-571

Application for:

the annulment of the Commission decision of 15 June 2001, approving the agreement between Vice President Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations of the Commission concerning the resources available to staff representatives and the rules on the resources available to staff representatives from 1 January 2002.

Held:

The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Standing to bring proceedings — Representative of a trade union or staff association — None

(Arts 230 EC and 236 EC)

A trade union or staff association, even if it comprises officials or other servants of the European Communities, cannot bring proceedings under Article 236 EC, but only under Article 230 EC. Therefore, an action brought by an official in his capacity as general secretary and representative of such a trade union or staff association must be dismissed as inadmissible where it has not been brought within the time-limit set out in Article 230 EC.

(see paras 15, 17, 23)

See: 175/73 Union Syndicale and Others v Council [1974] ECR 917, paras 13 to 20
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision addressed to a Member State definitively closing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund – Action brought by a regional authority – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

In the present case, since the contested decision embodied the Commission’s refusal to extend the time-limit for the submission of applications for final payment and definitively closed the disputed assistance on the basis of the expenditure incurred by 31 December 1997 in respect of works completed by 5 September 2002, it excluded any ERDF payment by way of the disputed assistance in respect of expenditure which was either implemented after 31 December 1997 or related to works not completed by 5 September 2002, such expenditure being thereby rendered ineligible for that assistance.

In that situation, the contested decision could be regarded as having directly affected the applicant’s legal situation only if, by virtue of that decision, and without the Italian Republic’s having had any discretion in that regard, that applicant had, on the one hand, been deprived of payment of the withdrawn amounts corresponding to sums not yet received from the ERDF by way of the disputed assistance and relating to expenditure which had become ineligible and was, on the other hand, obliged to refund the amounts unduly paid corresponding to sums already received by way of that assistance and intended for the implementation of expenditure which had become ineligible.

However, the Court has already held that no such consequences derive either from a Commission decision terminating ERDF financial assistance or from any other provision of Community law intended to govern the effect of such a decision.

In those circumstances, reimbursement of the Community funds paid to the applicant would be the direct consequence, not of the contested decision, but of the action which would be taken for that purpose by the Italian Republic on the basis of national legislation in order to fulfil obligations under the Community rules on the subject.

(see paras 54, 57-58, 70)
The Staff Regulations, the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and the general implementing provisions adopted by the Commission for the application of Article 11(1) and (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations contain no provisions specifically governing, as regards the transfer of pension rights, the situation of a member of the temporary staff who has subsequently become an official. In the absence of such specific provisions, and if the person concerned is an official at the time when he makes a request to that effect, the transfer of pension rights is governed by the provisions of Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and by Article 4(2) and (3) of the general implementing provisions, pursuant to which the number of years of pensionable service to be credited is to be calculated by reference to the date of the official's establishment and his grade on establishment.

It is only in a situation where a member of the temporary staff who has subsequently become an official could not apply for the transfer of his national pension rights because the Member State concerned had not yet adopted the necessary internal measures to allow such a transfer that the calculation of the number of years of service to be credited for the purposes of the retirement pension can be made, once the national measures authorising the aforementioned transfer have been adopted, on the basis of the salary of the person concerned at the time of his entry into service as a member of the temporary staff.

(see paras 83-84. 90)

See: 8/85 Bevete v Commission [1986] ECR 1187. para. 11; T-106/01 Youssouroum v Council 120021 ECRSC I-A-93 and II-435. paras 41 and 45
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by an association promoting the general interests of a category of natural or legal persons – Condition – Locus standi of its members individually – Whether locus standi of former members to be taken into consideration – Not included

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

An association formed for the promotion 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 230 EC, by a measure affecting the general interests of that category, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for annulment where its members cannot do so individually. In that regard, it cannot be accepted that a person’s past membership of an association allows that association to rely on possible action by that person. To accept such reasoning would amount to offering an association a sort of perpetual entitlement to bring proceedings, despite the fact that the association can no longer claim to represent the interests of its former member.

(see paras 27, 32)
Case T-276/02





Forum 187 ASBL

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(State aid – Tax regime – Existing aid – Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC – Legal effects – None – Inadmissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), 2 June 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Intermediate measures having independent legal effects in State aid matters – Admissibility

(Arts 88 EC and 230 EC)

2.. State aid – Commission decision to initiate a formal examination procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as existing aid – Effects – Whether legal certainty undermined having regard to the existence of previous Commission decisions holding that there was no aid – Not so undermined

(Art. 88(2) and (3) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7(2))

3.. Community law – Principles – Right to bring an action – Submission to the Community judicature for review of a decision to open the formal examination procedure in relation to a State measure provisionally classified as existing aid – Inadmissible

(Art. 88(2) EC)

1.

2.

3.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

2 December 2003

((EAGGF – Improvement of the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed – Application for the withdrawal of Community financial assistance – No action by the Commission – Action for failure to act))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),

makes the following

Order

Facts and procedure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

─ declare that the defendant failed to act in that it did not withdraw the assistance granted by the EAGGF for the purposes of jointly financing its investment project;

─ declare that the defendant failed to act in that it did not institute infringement proceedings against the Hellenic Republic;

─ order the defendant to pay the costs.

16

─ dismiss the application as inadmissible;

─ order the applicant to pay the costs.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber),

1.

2.

H. Jung J. Azizi
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

9 April 2003

((Action for annulment – Reviewable measures – Inadmissibility))

applicants,

v

defendant,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Third Chamber),

makes the following

Order

Legal framework

1

2

1.

2.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

─ reject the objection of inadmissibility;

─ annul the letter of 16 July 2002;

─ order the Commission to pay the costs.

18

─ dismiss the application as inadmissible;

─ order the applicants to pay the costs.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber)

1.

2.

H. Jung K. Lenaerts
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

25 June 2003

Case T-175/03 R

Norbert Schmitt

v

European Agency for Reconstruction

‛Interim relief — Admissibility’

Full text in French II-883

Application for:

suspension of operation of the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction to revoke the applicant's contract of employment

Held:

The application for interim relief is dismissed. Costs are reserved.

Summary

Applications for interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Application — Requirements as to form — Summary of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3))

It follows from a combined reading of Article 104(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, failure to comply with which constitutes an absolute bar to proceeding which must automatically be raised by the judge hearing the application for interim measures, that an application for interim measures must be sufficient to enable the defendant to submit its observations and the judge hearing the application to rule on that application, where necessary without other supporting information. For the purposes of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice, it is necessary, for such an application to be admissible, that the essential elements of fact and law on which it is founded be set out in a coherent and comprehensible fashion in the application for interim measures itself.

An application for interim measures which does not contain an account of the pleas of fact and law that make out a prima facie case for the suspension of operation sought must therefore be dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 15, 18, 21-22)

See: T-236/00 R Stauner and Others v Parliament and Commission [2001] ECR II-15, para 34; T-306/01 R Aden and Others v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-2387, paras 43, 49 and 52
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against the rejection of a trade mark application following the lodging of opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Admissibility at any time – Discontinuance by the applicant – Removal from the Register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 99; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(5))

Summary

In opposition proceedings brought against the registration of a Community trade mark, opposition may be withdrawn at any time. Accordingly, if opposition is withdrawn before the refusal of the application for registration under Article 43(5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark has become final, the decision of the Opposition Division and that of the Board of Appeal ruling on the opposition become redundant and cannot be an impediment to the registration of the trade mark.

If, in such circumstances, the applicant informs the Court in writing that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings, the President is to order the case to be removed from the Register under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 3-4)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Action really relating to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community courts – Inadmissibility

(Arts 225 EC, 230 EC, 238 EC, 240 EC and 249 EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Action really relating to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of action – Excluded

(Arts 230 EC and 238 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1. An action for annulment brought against letters of the Commission seeking to recover funds paid by way of subsidies granted in the context of the JOP programme, which itself was implemented in the context of the Phare programme, is inadmissible inasmuch as the letters are part of a purely contractual context from which they are inseparable and where, by their very nature, they are not among the measures covered by Article 249 EC, annulment of which may be sought before the Community judicature pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

(see paras 85, 87)

2. When faced with an annulment action whereas the dispute is, in reality, contractual in nature, the Court of First Instance cannot reclassify the action if, first, the applicant has expressly stated in its pleadings that the action is not based on Article 238 EC, and, secondly, contrary to what is provided in Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure, the applicant does not raise, even briefly, any plea, argument or complaint alleging infringement of the law of the Member State which applies to the agreement in question by virtue of the arbitration clause contained in that agreement.

(see para. 88)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Competition – Concentrations – Referral of the examination of a concentration to the competent authorities of a Member State – Effects – Exclusive competence of the national authorities to make a determination in respect of the transaction – No possibility for the Commission to exercise direct control – Possibility of control by initiation of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations

(Art. 226 EC; Council Regulation No 4064/89, Art. 9(8))

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal of Commission to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations – Exclusion

(Arts 226 EC and 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. Regulation No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations between undertakings does not lay down specific rules on the division of powers after the decision to refer a concentration to the national authorities of a Member State has been taken which derogate from the system provided for in the Treaties. It is true that Article 9(8) of Regulation No 4064/89 does not expressly exclude the power of the Commission to monitor compliance by the Member States with the obligations laid down in the Community competition rules, from which the referral does not have the effect of releasing them. However, although that article imposes an obligation on the Member State concerned, neither the Treaties nor the secondary legislation provide for a special review procedure that must be carried out by the Commission.

The Commission may not, therefore, monitor compliance with that obligation other than by means of the procedure established by the Treaties in the case of a transaction falling within the jurisdiction of that Member State. As regards a concentration over which the Commission no longer exercises direct control after it has been referred to the national authorities, the Commission may act only under Article 226 EC, by bringing, where appropriate, an action against that Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations.

(see paras 40, 42-43)

2. Individuals do not have standing to challenge a refusal by the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations. In effect, the Commission is not required to commence proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, but enjoys a discretion which precludes any right for individuals to require it to take a specific position and to bring an action against its refusal to take action.

(see para. 44)
Case T-158/03 R





Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Proceedings for interim relief – Application for suspension of operation – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 5 August 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Application – Procedural requirements – Failure to produce documents – Regularisation

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(3) to (6) and 104(3))

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Priority to be given to protection of public health over economic considerations – Account taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant

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

1.

2.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/33, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 45-47, 71-74

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Council;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs;

5. Orders Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH to bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.
Case T-369/03 R





Arizona Chemical BV and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim measures – Directive 67/548 – Urgency)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 16 January 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Art. 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 – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Negative administrative decision – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof

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

3.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial damage – Situation capable of endangering the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which it belongs

(Arts 235 EC, 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

1.

2.

3.