ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Object

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

2 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Factors to be taken into account

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

3 Procedure - Costs - Taxation - Recoverable costs - Intervener

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 91(b) and 92(1))

Summary

1 In proceedings concerning the taxation of costs, the Community judicature is not empowered to tax the fees payable by the parties to their own lawyers but may determine the amount of those fees which may be recovered from the party ordered to pay the costs.

2 Since Community law does not contain any provisions laying down a scale of fees, the Community judicature must consider all the facts of the case, taking into account the purpose and nature of the proceedings, their significance from the point of view of Community law, as well as the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the dispute for the agents and advisers involved and the financial interest which the parties had in the proceedings; in so doing, it is not obliged to take account of any national scales of lawyers' fees or any agreement in relation to fees concluded between the party concerned and his agents or advisers.

3 In proceedings concerning the taxation of costs, where the action has been brought by an intervener, it must be borne in mind that, since an intervention is, by definition, subordinate to the main action, only in exceptional cases will it present the same difficulties.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure - Intervention - Persons having an interest - Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by rules of Community law - Undertaking in a situation comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings but alleging different damage - Indirect interest in the result of the case - Inadmissible

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

Summary

An interest in the result of the case, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, must be understood as a direct interest in the outcome of the application where, in the course of an action for damages, an application for leave to intervene is submitted by an undertaking whose interest consists in defending its own situation, which, although comparable to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, is nevertheless different from it inasmuch as the rights which the two undertakings wish to assert against the Community concern different losses.

Consequently, in the context of an action for compensation for damage caused to an undertaking by a Community regulation, an application for leave to intervene by another undertaking which can establish only an indirect interest in the result of the case, arising from a mere similarity between the situations in question, is inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 10 June 1998. - Cementir - Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities. - Inadmissibility - Confirmatory act - Lis pendens. - Case T-116/95.



European Court reports 1998 Page II-02261



Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Commission letter rejecting a request for reduction of the amount of a fine imposed in a decision applying the competition rules and stating the reasons for that amount - Confirmatory decision - Exclusion

(EC Treaty, Art. 173)

Summary

An undertaking which has brought an action against a decision imposing on it a fine for infringement of the Community competition rules has no standing to contest a letter in which the Commission rejects its request to have the amount of that fine reduced and states the reasons for that amount. Such a letter merely confirms the decision imposing the fine and does not affect the undertaking's legal position resulting from the adoption of the decision.
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 26 November 1996. - Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v Council of the European Union. - Action for declaration of failure to act - Former officials - Social security - Admissibility. - Case T-167/95.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01607



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Act sought - Regulation - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 175, third para.)

2 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure by the Council to request the Commission to submit to it proposals for the amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 152 and 175)

Summary

3 An action brought under Article 175 of the Treaty by a natural or legal person must be dismissed as inadmissible where the only legal instrument which would satisfy the request made to the institution concerned is a regulation, since an instrument of that kind cannot be described, by reason either of its form or of its nature, as an act capable of being addressed to such a person within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty.

Even on the assumption that an individual may complain that an institution has failed to adopt an act which, whilst not addressed to him, is of direct and individual concern to him, the action is inadmissible if the applicant is unable to show that the act in question would place him in a situation of that kind.

4 Where an action is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration that, by failing to request the Commission to submit to it proposals for the amendment of the Staff Regulations of Officials, the Council has failed to act, in breach of Article 152 of the Treaty, that action is inadmissible, since the Council enjoys a wide discretion in that context.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of operation of a decision requiring an undertaking to repay Community assistance improperly received - Conditions for granting - Risk of harm in the event of delay - Concept - Burden of proof

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

Summary

The risk of harm incurred by an undertaking in the event of delay, capable of justifying the suspension of operation of a decision requiring that undertaking to repay Community assistance improperly received exists only where performance of that obligation, even if done by the provision of a bank guarantee, would jeopardize the existence of the undertaking in question. It is for the undertaking to show that this is the case.

Such evidence is not provided by the production of tax returns and trading accounts showing losses over several consecutive financial years. Tax returns and trading accounts are accounting documents which give a static picture of the state of the undertaking, and which, particularly in the absence of any reference whatever to its market position, are not sufficient to give an exhaustive description of its real economic situation and, in particular, its inability to secure bank credit.
Keywords

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.
Keywords

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.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 1996. - Cipeke - Comércio e Indústria de Papel Ldª v Commission of the European Communities. - Social policy - European Social Fund - Decision ordering partial reimbursement of assistance for a vocational training programme - Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency - No urgency. - Case T-84/96 R.



European Court reports 1996 Page II-01313



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Suspension of operation of a decision requiring an undertaking to repay Community assistance improperly received - Conditions for granting - Risk of harm in the event of delay - Concept - Burden of proof

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

Summary

The risk of harm incurred by an undertaking in the event of delay, capable of justifying the suspension of operation of a decision requiring that undertaking to repay Community assistance improperly received exists only where performance of that obligation, even if done by the provision of a bank guarantee, would jeopardize the existence of the undertaking in question. It is for the undertaking to show that this is the case.

Such evidence is not provided by the production of tax returns and trading accounts showing losses over several consecutive financial years. Tax returns and trading accounts are accounting documents which give a static picture of the state of the undertaking, and which, particularly in the absence of any reference whatever to its market position, are not sufficient to give an exhaustive description of its real economic situation and, in particular, its inability to secure bank credit.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 1997. - J. Antonissen v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union. - Milk quotas - Action based on non-contractual liability of the Community - Interim relief - Payment of part of the compensation sought by way of advance - Conditions - Not fulfilled. - Case T-179/96 R.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-00425



Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Provisional measures - Grant of an advance payment of damages - Measure likely to prove irreversible - Conditions for granting

(EC Treaty, Art. 186)

Summary

Where it is likely in practice to be irreversible in view of the applicant's financial situation and hence might have the effect of prejudging the decision of the Court of First Instance in the main proceedings, the grant of an advance payment of damages sought by way of interim relief may be envisaged only if, on the one hand, the pleas and arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his request appear prima facie particularly strong and well founded and, on the other hand, there is undeniable urgency.

Such likelihood of irreversibility exists specifically where, in order to prove the urgency of the application, the applicant describes the risk of bankruptcy to which he is exposed by his precarious financial situation, which in itself makes it scarcely possible in practice to make the advance subject to safeguards with a view to its repayment in the event that his claim in the main proceedings is rejected.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 July 1997. - Smanor SA, Hubert Ségaud and Monique Ségaud v Commission of the European Communities. - Failure to initiate infringement proceedings - Action for failure to act - Action for damages - Inadmissibility. - Case T-201/96.



European Court reports 1997 Page II-01081



Summary



Keywords

1 Actions for failure to act - Natural or legal persons - Actionable omissions - Failure to initiate infringement proceedings - Inadmissibility

(EC Treaty, Arts 169, 173, fourth para., and 175)

2 Non-contractual liability - Conditions - Unlawfulness - Fact that the Commission did not initiate infringement proceedings - Not unlawful - Claim for damages - Inadmissible

(EC Treaty, Arts 169 and 215, second para.)

Summary

3 Where an action is brought by a natural or legal person for a declaration of failure to act in that, by not initiating infringement proceedings against a Member State, the Commission has failed, in breach of the Treaty, to take a decision, that action is inadmissible, irrespective of the nature of the infringement of Community law alleged against the Member State concerned.

It is clear from the scheme of Article 169 of the Treaty that the Commission is not obliged to commence proceedings under that provision but has a discretion in that regard which excludes the right for individuals to require it to adopt a specific position. Furthermore, a natural or legal person who requests the Commission to initiate a procedure under Article 169 is in fact seeking the adoption of acts which would not be of direct and individual concern to him within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty and which he would thus in any event be unable to challenge in annulment proceedings.

4 Since the Commission is under no obligation to commence infringement proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty, its decision not to do so is not unlawful and thus cannot give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community, the only conduct which might possibly be adduced as giving rise to damage being the conduct of the Member State concerned. Consequently, a claim for damages the real aim of which is to complain of the Commission's decision not to commence infringement proceedings against a Member State is inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Interim measures - Conditions for granting - Serious and irreparable damage - No such damage in the case of a banana importer seeking application of a reduction coefficient more favourable than that set by the contested regulation

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

Summary

Where an application for interim measures is made by importers of bananas from third countries seeking suspension, before the definitive reduction coefficient for the current marketing year is fixed and until judgment is given in the main action, of operation of Regulation No 1155/97, fixing the reduction coefficients for the determination of the quantity of bananas to be allocated to each operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for 1997, and issue of the number of import certificates to which the applicants claim to be entitled, the condition relating to urgency laid down in Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance is not fulfilled where the loss which the applicants claim they will wrongly have to suffer cannot be regarded as being such as to cause serious damage to undertakings of their size and where the alleged damage is reparable in so far as any reduction in imports would constitute an economic loss which could be made good by the means of redress provided for in the Treaty.

Upholding the applicants' claims would also encroach on the Commission's powers to establish the reduction coefficient and would entail the adoption of measures which would not be provisional but which would produce effects identical to those sought by the main application, since they would merely anticipate what would ensue from annulment of the contested regulation.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation of a measure - Conditions for granting - Urgency - Serious and irreparable harm - Balancing all the interests involved

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

Summary

The judge hearing an interlocutory application for suspension of operation of a measure must first examine whether the possible annulment of the contested measure by the Court ruling on the substance would make it possible to reverse the situation that would be brought about by the immediate implementation of that measure and conversely whether suspension of its operation would be such as to prevent it from being fully effective in the event of the main application's being dismissed.

In the case of a safeguard measure adopted in the context of the association of the overseas countries and territories, the judge hearing an application for interim measures may not, other than in a situation of obvious urgency, override the Council's assessment as to the choice of the most appropriate safeguard measure, without running the risk of encroaching upon that institution's power of assessment.

Where the applicant has not shown that it is in danger of suffering serious and irreparable harm as a result of the application of the contested regulation, appropriate damages could be awarded if the contested regulation were to be annulled by the Court ruling on the substance. The fact that the regulation may have already been implemented and its specified period of application may have expired would not deprive the applicant of adequate protection of its rights, since the institution concerned would be obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and might thus be required to restore the applicant to its original situation or to avoid the adoption of an identical measure.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment - Actionable measures - Definition - Acts having binding legal effects - Commission decision initiating an anti-dumping proceeding - Preparatory act

(EC Treaty, Art. 173; Council Regulation No 384/96)

Summary

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 constitute acts which may be contested, as opposed to intermediate measures intended to pave the way for the final decision, whose legality may only be challenged in an action brought against the final decision. Moreover, only measures immediately and irreversibly affecting the legal position of the undertakings concerned are of such a nature as to justify, before completion of the administrative procedure, the admissibility of an action for annulment.

Since the act by which the Commission initiates anti-dumping proceedings is a purely preparatory act, it cannot be regarded as an actionable measure. It follows from the provisions of anti-dumping Regulation No 384/96 that the Commission is responsible for carrying out investigations and deciding, on the basis of those investigations, whether to terminate the proceedings or to continue them, either by adopting provisional measures or by proposing to the Council that it adopt definitive measures.

That conclusion cannot be called into question either by the fact that, before a particular complaint was submitted, the Commission's spokesman had stated that the Commission would immediately open a procedure if a new complaint were lodged - which is a matter which falls to be examined in connection with the substantive legality of the Notice of Initiation - or by any greater or lesser degree of certainty as regards the imposition of anti-dumping duties since, in law, the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not necessarily result in such duties being imposed. Moreover, the Notice of Initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding does not have the legal effect of compelling the undertakings concerned to alter their commercial practices or to cooperate in the investigation.