ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Application for interim measures - Interim measures - Request for the issue of import licences for bananas in derogation from the tariff quota fixed for the current marketing year - Necessary to take account of the limits imposed by Regulation No 404/93 - Rejection of the request made by an importer of bananas from Somalia considered to be in a position to resume its traditional imports

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 404/93, Art. 30)

Summary

When examining the merits of an application for interim measures, made by an undertaking which imports traditional ACP bananas from Somalia and seeking to obtain, outside the tariff quota fixed for the current marketing year, import licences for third-country or non-traditional ACP bananas in a quantity equal to the difference between the quantity of Somalian bananas which it is able to import during that marketing year and the quantity which it imported before the outbreak of civil war in Somalia, the judge hearing the application must verify not only that the requirements laid down by Article 104 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance are satisfied but also that the limits imposed on the introduction of derogations from the general system of allocating licences by Regulation No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in bananas, and in particular by Article 30 concerning the transitional measures considered necessary to assist the transition from national arrangements to the common organization of the markets are observed.

There is no need to adopt measures intended to correct the current allocation of import licences, since the forecast production of a quantity of Somalian bananas sufficient to enable the undertaking to resume its traditional imports supports the prima facie conclusion that the rules governing the common organization of the markets do not appear to restrict the opportunities for that undertaking to import bananas from Somalia within the framework of the tariff quota provided for by Regulation No 404/93 and that, for the current marketing year, there do not appear to be any difficulties, caused by the transition from the national arrangements existing before the entry into force of Regulation No 404/93 to the present arrangements under the common organization of the markets, which could threaten the undertaking's survival.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Interest of applicant in obtaining the measure sought - Measures which do not prejudge the decision on the merits - Application for suspension of a decision refusing authorization for the grant of aid to a steel undertaking and for the reopening of the procedure for examining that aid - Dismissed - Application for an order requiring the Commission to call upon a Member State to suspend the payment of aid under an authorized scheme - Dismissed

(ECSC Treaty, Arts 4(c), 34 and 39; Commission Decision No 3855/91)

Summary

A decision of the Commission refusing authorization for the grant of State aid to a steel undertaking is negative in character. Such an undertaking cannot establish an interest in obtaining the suspension of such a decision by way of interim relief since, in the absence of a positive decision of the Commission authorizing the aid in question, the prohibition on subsidies and aid laid down by Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty must apply.

Nor can such an undertaking establish an interest in obtaining, by way of interim relief, the reopening of the procedure for examining the aid in question, inasmuch as to reopen the procedure would not necessarily lead the Commission to adopt a positive decision which alone could permit the State in question to grant the aid to that undertaking. Moreover, a measure of that kind would not be an interim measure since it would produce the same results as those sought in the main proceedings and prejudge the decision on the merits.

Finally, where the aid in question is related to a system of aid, already approved by the Commission, for the permanent closure of steelworks, to uphold an application for interim relief seeking that the Commission be required to call upon the Member State concerned to suspend payment of aid for closure to the other undertakings which have applied for it is of only apparent usefulness, inasmuch as it does not prevent the expiry of the time-limit, laid down in Decision No 3855/91, beyond which no more aid can be paid. Moreover, such a measure - amounting to ordering a Member State to suspend an aid scheme already found to be compatible with the Treaty - would manifestly be beyond the powers conferred on the Commission.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable harm - Alleged manifest illegality of the contested measure - Submissions not precluding the possibility that the measure was materially justified - Not to be taken into account

(EC Treaty, Art. 186; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable harm - Burden of proof

(EC Treaty, Art. 186)

3 Applications for interim measures - Interim measures - Application for the Commission to be ordered to authorise State aid on a provisional basis - Dismissed

(EC Treaty, Arts 92, 93 and 186)

Summary

4 The urgency of an application for interim relief must be assessed in relation to the necessity for an interlocutory order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party applying for the interim measure.

The judge dealing with the matter cannot amend the requirements relating to that criterion on the ground that the contested measure - for instance, a Commission decision finding State aid to be incompatible with the common market - is manifestly illegal, where all the submissions put forward in the application for interim relief in order to show that there is a prima facie case in the main proceedings allege `defects in the statement of reasons' which do not by their nature preclude the possibility that the contested decision is materially justified under Article 92 of the Treaty.

5 It is for the party seeking interim relief to prove that it cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering serious and irreparable harm.

In that regard, the risk must affect interests which are peculiar to the applicant or, in the case of an association of undertakings, at the very least interests which it is called upon to protect.

In order to be able to determine whether the harm which the applicant fears is serious and irreparable, the judge hearing the application must have hard evidence allowing him to determine the precise consequences which the absence of the measures applied for would in all probability entail.

6 In the framework of the system for monitoring State aid set up by Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, the final sentence of Article 93(3) protects competition by preventing payment of the aid before the Commission has been able to satisfy itself that it is compatible with the common market. That procedure implies the exercise of a wide discretion on the part of the Commission, whose role the judge hearing the application for interim measures therefore cannot assume. Consequently, when the Commission has in the exercise of that power found aid to be incompatible with the common market, the judge hearing the application for interim measures cannot, in the absence of sufficient evidence to establish a danger of serious and irreparable harm, disapply the rules on the protection of competition laid down in Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by ordering the Commission to authorise the aid on a provisional basis.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 4 October 1996. - Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson v Commission of the European Communities. - Common agricultural policy - Sugar beet - Regulation (EC) No 1734/95 - Specific agricultural conversion rate - No conversion rate for Sweden - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility. - Case T-5/96.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01299



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures having binding legal effects - Commission letter refusing to amend a regulation by fixing a specific agricultural conversion rate for a Member State - Excluded

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Commission Regulation No 1734/95)

Summary

An action for annulment brought by an association of sugar beet producers in a Member State against a Commission letter refusing to accede to its request seeking, in substance, an amendment to Regulation No 1734/95 is inadmissible, that regulation fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector, but not fixing any conversion rate applicable in the Member State concerned.

Acts or decisions against which an action for annulment may be brought under Article 173 of the Treaty are those which produce binding legal effects capable of affecting an applicant's interests and bringing about a distinct change in his legal position. That is not the position with regard to a letter merely providing information and confined to explaining briefly to the addressee why the previous legislative position contained in the above regulation was taken. Furthermore, an action brought by a natural or legal person against a Commission refusal retroactively to rectify a measure will be inadmissible if the rectification requested would have had to be adopted in the form of a generally applicable regulation, since a consequence of the hierarchy of Community legal acts is that an act of general application cannot be implicitly altered by an individual decision.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 December 1996. - Söktas Pamuk Ve Tarim Ürünlerini Degerlendirme Ticaret Ve Sanayii AS (Söktas) v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Notice of initiation of anti-dumping proceedings - Preparatory act - Inadmissible. - Case T-75/96.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01689



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Measures having binding legal effects - Commission decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings - Preparatory act - Existence of a procedure laid down by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement for the settlement of dumping disputes - Irrelevant

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Additional Protocol, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 3283/94)

2 Actions for damages - Action brought against the Commission concerning a measure with no legal effect - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 178 and 215, second para.)

Summary

3 Measures whose legal effects are binding and are capable of affecting the applicants' interests by clearly altering their legal position constitute acts which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty. In the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages, in principle only measures definitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusion of the procedure - not intermediate measures which are intended to pave the way for the final decision and whose illegality may be raised in an action for annulment of that decision - constitute acts which may be contested.

A Commission decision initiating anti-dumping proceedings cannot be regarded, in terms of its nature or its effects, as an actionable measure. It follows from the provisions of the basic anti-dumping regulation (Regulation No 3283/94) that the Commission's task is to undertake investigations and on that basis to decide either to terminate the proceedings or to continue them, whether by adopting provisional measures or by proposing to the Council the adoption of definitive measures; the act by which the Commission initiates anti-dumping proceedings must therefore be regarded as a purely preparatory act which is not capable of immediately and irreversibly affecting the applicant's legal position.

The preparatory nature of the act is not called into question in any way by the fact that the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey provides for a procedure whereby the Association Council may settle dumping disputes. That procedure, which is laid down by Article 47 of the Additional Protocol annexed to that Agreement, does not displace the trade protection measures created by the Community and is not brought to a standstill by the Community's initiation of anti-dumping proceedings.

4 An action for damages seeking compensation for damage caused by the alleged unlawfulness of a measure adopted by an institution is inadmissible if that measure has no legal effect.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 March 1998. - CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Intervention. - Case T-191/96.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-00573



Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Interested parties - Assessment by the Community judicature of the interest to intervene

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 37, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 115)

Summary

The interest of a party seeking leave to intervene, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, falls to be defined in the light of the actual subject-matter of the dispute in question. For the purposes of granting leave to intervene, the Community judicature must ascertain, in the case of an action for annulment, whether the applicant for such leave is directly affected by the contested decision and whether his interest in the result of the case is established. Similarly, the prospective intervener must establish a direct, existing interest in the grant of the order as sought and not an interest in relation to the pleas in law put forward. The interest necessary in this respect must not relate merely to abstract legal arguments but to the actual form of order sought by a party to the main action.

More specifically, it is necessary to distinguish between prospective interveners establishing a direct interest in the ruling on the specific act whose annulment is sought and those who can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case by means of similarities between their situation and that of one of the parties. In that respect, the mere fact that an economic operator finds himself in a situation analogous to that of the applicant, in particular in that it claims to have suffered damage as a result of the same Community act, and that the case in which he seeks leave to intervene could give rise to a judgment whose grounds might influence the manner in which the defendant institution would deal with his own situation is not, in itself, sufficient to establish an interest to intervene for the purposes of the aforementioned provision.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for failure to act - Failure remedied after the action was brought - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Arts 175 and 176)

Summary

The remedy provided for in Article 175 of the Treaty is founded on the premiss that the failure to act on the part of a Community institution enables an action to be brought before the Court of First Instance in order to obtain a declaration that the failure to act is contrary to the Treaty, in so far as it has not been remedied by the institution concerned. The effect of that declaration under Article 176 of the Treaty is that the defendant institution is required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment. Where the act whose absence constitutes the subject-matter of the proceedings was adopted after the action was brought but before judgment, a declaration by the Court to the effect that the initial failure to act is unlawful can no longer lead to the result envisaged by Article 176 of the Treaty. It follows that in such a case the subject-matter of the action has ceased to exist with the result that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action seeking the annulment of a regulation introducing safeguard measures - Regulation repealed by another regulation during the course of the proceedings, with retroactive effect - Acknowledgment by the institution which had adopted the repealed regulation of its removal from the Community legal order - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2 Procedure - Costs - Case not proceeding to judgment - Particular circumstances

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))

Summary

3 An action seeking the annulment of a Commission regulation introducing safeguard measures becomes devoid of purpose, and there is thus no need for the Court to adjudicate, where that regulation is repealed during the course of the proceedings, with retroactive effect, by a Council regulation and where, by requesting a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, the Commission acknowledges that the contested regulation no longer forms part of the Community legal order, and can thus no longer claim that it is applicable or rely on it as against the applicant should the Council regulation be annulled.

4 It is appropriate that the parties each bear their own costs, where there is no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment of a Commission regulation introducing safeguard measures in the framework of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories because the contested measure has been repealed by a Council regulation adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in that decision and where that repeal is not to be explained on the ground either that the Commission committed an error or that the pleas in law put forward by the applicant in its application are acknowledged to be well founded, but is merely the result of the exercise of a power of decision conferred on the Council.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Action brought directly under Article 173 of the Treaty against a decision of a Community body not mentioned therein, by a member of its staff - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 4 and 173; Council Regulation No 40/94)

Summary

An action brought directly against a decision of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) by a member of a Board of Appeal of the Office on the basis of Article 173 of the Treaty must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

According to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the Community judicature may review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the European Central Bank, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties. It follows that acts emanating from Community bodies other than those listed in that provision may not be challenged on the basis of it. The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is not one of the Community institutions listed in Article 4 of the Treaty, nor is it mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty.

Moreover, such a decision is not immune from all judicial review, having regard to the remedies provided for by Regulation No 40/94 which are potentially available against it.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Natural or legal persons - Measures of direct and individual concern to them - Regulation on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro - Action brought by the holder of a transferable security drawn in ecus - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Art. 173, fourth para.; Council Regulation No 1103/97)

Summary

An action brought by an individual for annulment of Regulation No 1103/97 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro, which requires, in particular, that every reference to the ecu, as mentioned in Article 109g of the Treaty, is to be replaced by a reference to the euro, is inadmissible.

In this respect, the fact that the applicant holds a French fungible Treasury bond drawn in ecus is not enough to give him locus standi under the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty. While the change in the name of the single currency does affect the applicant, it is only in his capacity as a citizen of a Member State and user of the single currency, and in the same way as any other citizen or undertaking in a Member State, so that the disputed act is not of individual concern to him.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure - Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance - Action, pending before the Court of First Instance, brought by a natural or legal person under Article 173, fourth paragraph, of the Treaty, concerning the introduction by the Council of safeguard measures in respect of imports - Action, pending before the Court of Justice, for annulment of the same measure, but brought by a Member State - In the interests of the proper administration of justice that the Court of Justice should take into consideration the arguments of the natural or legal person - Jurisdiction declined by the Court of First Instance

(EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 47, third para.)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 September 1997. - Antillean Rice Mills NV v Commission of the European Communities. - Action for annulment - Retroactive repeal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate. - Case T-26/97.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01347



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for annulment - Action seeking the annulment of a regulation introducing safeguard measures - Regulation repealed by another regulation during the course of the proceedings, with retroactive effect - Acknowledgment by the institution which had adopted the repealed regulation of its removal from the Community legal order - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

2 Procedure - Costs - Case not proceeding to judgment - Particular circumstances

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(6))

Summary

3 An action seeking the annulment of a Commission regulation introducing safeguard measures becomes devoid of purpose, and there is thus no need for the Court to adjudicate, where that regulation is repealed during the course of the proceedings, with retroactive effect, by a Council regulation and where, by requesting a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, the Commission acknowledges that the contested regulation no longer forms part of the Community legal order, and can thus no longer claim that it is applicable or rely on it as against the applicant should the Council regulation be annulled.

4 It is appropriate that the parties each bear their own costs, where there is no longer any need to adjudicate on an action seeking the annulment of a Commission regulation introducing safeguard measures in the framework of Decision 91/482 on the association of the overseas countries and territories because the contested measure has been repealed by a Council regulation adopted in accordance with the procedure provided for in that decision and where that repeal is not to be explained on the ground either that the Commission committed an error or that the pleas in law put forward by the applicant in its application are acknowledged to be well founded, but is merely the result of the exercise of a power of decision conferred on the Council.