ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2005 − Fintecna v Commission

(Case T-249/02)

European Social Fund – Reduction of financial assistance – Action for annulment – Actionable measure – Preparatory measure – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter of the Commission relating to the rectification of the final balances of operational programmes for which Community financial assistance was granted – Excluded (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(1)) (see paras 40-41, 43)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 March 2000 relating to various financial measures of the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to a number of operational programmes under the Community scheme of support for the achievement of Objectives 1, 3 and 4 in Italy (Centre-North and Mezzogiorno)

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Appeal procedure — Action brought against the rejection of an application for a trade mark following an opposition procedure — Withdrawal of the opposition — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2. Community trade mark — Observations from third parties and opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Permissible at any time — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 42 to 44)

3. Community trade mark — Appeal procedure — Appeals before the Community judicature — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance — Whether it may issue directions to OHIM — Excluded — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(6))

Summary

1. The withdrawal of the opposition brought against the registration of a Community trade mark renders devoid of purpose an action before the Court of First Instance contesting the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) rejecting the application for a mark on account of the opposition so that, in accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no longer any need for the Court of First Instance to rule on the action.

Where the opposition is withdrawn in the course of proceedings before the Board of Appeal for a decision on the opposition or in the course of proceedings before the Community judicature for a ruling on an appeal to the Office against the decision on opposition, there is no longer any basis for the proceedings, with the result that they become devoid of purpose.

see paras 18, 20, 24

2. In opposition proceedings brought against the registration of a Community trade mark under Article 42 et seq. of Regulation No 40/94, an opposition may, in principle be withdrawn at any time. Although it is true that, in the first sentence of Article 44(1) of Regulation No 40/94, the legislature has made express provision only for withdrawal of the trade mark application, the applicant for a Community trade mark and the opponent are none the less placed on an equal footing according to the scheme of the regulation, so that that equality must extend to the possibility of withdrawing procedural documents.

see para. 19

3. Where an action has been brought before the Community judicature against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), the Office is required, under Article 63(6) of Regulation No 40/94, to take the measures necessary to comply with the order or judgment of the court. Accordingly, the Court is not entitled to issue directions to the Office.

see para. 23
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Interim measures — Suspension of operation — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative conditions — Consequences — (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Interim measures — Suspension of operation — Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate payment of a fine — Conditions for granting — Exceptional circumstances — (Art. 242 EC)

Summary

1. An application for interim measures must specify the circumstances giving rise to the urgency and the pleas in fact and in law justifying prima facie (fumus boni juris) the granting of the interim measure sought. These conditions are cumulative, so that an application for suspension must be dismissed if one of them is lacking.

see para. 12

2. An application for suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate payment of a fine can be accepted only in exceptional circumstances. The possibility of requiring the provision of a financial guarantee is explicitly laid down for interim proceedings by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance and corresponds to a general and reasonable course of conduct on the part of the Commission.

The existence of such exceptional circumstances may, in principle, be regarded as being established when the party seeking to be exempted from provision of the required bank guarantee adduces evidence that it is objectively impossible for it to provide that guarantee or that providing it would endanger its existence. The relevance of that evidence must be assessed in the light of the objective economic situation of the applicant.

see paras 32-35
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against the decision of a Board of Appeal on an application for registration a Community trade mark – Withdrawal of that application – Appeal rendered devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113)

Summary

The withdrawal of an application for registration of a Community trade mark to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) renders devoid of purpose the appeal brought before the Court of First Instance against the decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office regarding that application, so that there is no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate.

(see para. 3)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Purpose

–

Annulment of the rejection of a complaint by the applicant allegedly made by a Commission decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market

–

Contested decision relating to measures different from those covered by the complaint

–

Action devoid of purpose

–

Inadmissible (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 35, 45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2003) 1652 final of 27 May 2003 declaring the measures which the United Kingdom authorities propose to adopt for Post Office Ltd to be compatible with the common market (State aid N 784/2002).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear the costs of its intervention.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Application concerning, in reality, a contractual dispute – Measure adopted on the basis of a regulation and not pursuant to a contract – No effect on the contractual nature of the dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community Courts – Inadmissible

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

2. Actions for annulment – Action directed against a decision which merely confirms a previous decision – Inadmissible

(Art. 230 EC)

Summary

1. Measures adopted by the institutions within a purely contractual framework, from which they cannot be separated, are not, by their very nature, measures referred to by Article 249 EC, which the Community Courts can be requested to annul under Article 230 EC. The contractual nature of a dispute cannot be denied solely on the ground that the contested measure was adopted on the basis of a regulation and not by virtue of a contract, where the terms of the regulation form part of the contractual provisions binding the parties to the dispute.

Under the combined provisions of Article 225 EC and Article 238 EC, the Court of First Instance does not have jurisdiction to give judgment in disputes relating to contractual matters brought before it by natural or legal persons unless there is an arbitration clause to that effect. If it were otherwise, the Court would be extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 240 EC on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since that article leaves to national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over the other disputes to which the Community is a party.

(see paras 39-40, 53, 58)

2. A decision which merely confirms a previous decision is not open to challenge under Article 230 EC and any action directed against such a decision is accordingly inadmissible.

(see para. 62)
Case T-47/03 R





Jose Maria Sison

v

Council of the European Union





«(Interlocutory proceedings – Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism – Freezing of funds – Disallowance of benefits – Urgency – None)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 15 May 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely pecuniary loss – Measure freezing assets of an individual as part of the fight against terrorism

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not capable of better relief in interlocutory proceedings than in the main proceedings – No urgency

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2580/2001)

1.

2.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

Pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to the Court of First Instance by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 thereof, the right to intervene in cases submitted to the Court of First Instance is open not only to the Member States and institutions of the Communities, but also to any other person establishing an interest in the result of the case.

Representative associations whose object is to protect their members in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members are allowed to intervene. More particularly, an association may be granted leave to intervene in a case if it represents an appreciable number of operators active in the sector concerned, its objects include that of protecting its members’ interests, the case may raise questions of principle affecting the functioning of the sector concerned and the interests of its members may therefore be affected to an appreciable extent by the judgment to be given.

An organisation which represents an appreciable number of lawyers, and the object of which in particular is to assist bar associations, law societies and their members to develop and improve the profession’s organisation and status, to assist members of the legal profession throughout the world, whether in the field of legal education or otherwise, and to develop and improve their legal services to the public must be allowed to intervene in a case raising fundamental questions concerning the confidentiality of communications between a lawyer and his client.

(see paras 14-18)
Case T-422/03 R





Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International Inc.

v

Commission of the European Communities





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

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 3 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Negative administrative decision

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC)

2.. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Occurrence of harm depending on future and uncertain events

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

1.

2.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 23 April 2007 – SID v Commission

(Case T‑30/03)

State aid – Decision not to raise any objections – Actions for annulment – Admissibility – Definition of interested party – Trade union

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-42)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish fiscal measures applicable to seafarers on board vessels registered in the Danish international register.

Operative part

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Actions for annulment brought by an association and a foundation having as their goal to promote the protection and the conservation of the environment against Decisions 2004/248 and 2004/247 concerning, respectively, the non-inclusion of atrazine and simazine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing those active substances are inadmissible.

Those provisions affect the applicants in their objective capacity as entities whose purpose is to protect the environment, in the same manner as any other person in the same situation.

Moreover, nor does the fact that the applicants have special consultative status with the Commission or other European or national institutions, whereas the Community legislation applicable to the adoption of those decisions does not provide for any procedural guarantee for the applicants, or even for any form of participation by the Community advisory bodies established pursuant to that legislation, to which the applicants claim to belong, support the finding that they are individually concerned by the decisions in question. The fact that a person participates, in one way or another, in the process leading to the adoption of a Community act does not distinguish him individually in relation to the act in question unless the relevant Community legislation has laid down specific procedural guarantees for such a person.

Likewise, the standing conferred on applicants in some of the legal systems of the Member States is irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether they have standing to bring an action for annulment of a Community act pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.

Moreover, the fact that, in the statement of reasons for a regulation proposal, the Commission states that the applicants have standing does not exempt them from the requirement of having to prove that they are individually concerned by the contested act. The principles governing the hierarchy of norms preclude secondary legislation from conferring standing on individuals who do not meet the requirements of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. A fortiori the same holds true for the statement of reasons of a proposal for secondary legislation.

(see paras 56, 58, 61-62, 71-72)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Pre-litigation phase of infringement proceedings – Commission decision to close its file on a complaint – Not included

(Arts 226 EC and 230 EC)

Summary

Decisions whereby the Commission closes the case definitively on complaints of a State’s conduct capable of giving rise to the initiation of infringement proceedings are not challengeable acts and an action for annulment brought against them must be dismissed as inadmissible, without there being any need to consider whether it satisfies the other requirements of Article 230 EC.

Challengeable acts for the purposes of that provision are measures whose legal effects are binding on, and are capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant, by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

Decisions to close the file on complaints concerning State conduct liable to give rise to proceedings under Article 226 EC form part of the actions undertaken by the Commission in the interests of sound administration of the pre-litigation phase of infringement proceedings, as is indicated by Commission Communication 2002/C 244/03 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law.

Since the sole purpose of the pre‑litigation phase of the procedures for non-compliance is to enable the Member State to comply of its own accord with the requirements of the Treaty or, as the case may be, to give it the opportunity to justify its position, no measures adopted by the Commission in that context are binding.

(see paras 44, 46-48, 56, 60)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 30, 32-33)

2. Procedure – More than one defendant (see para. 41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect of two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community Programme ‘Telemetric systems in the area of transport’

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility.
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 2004/52) (see paras 53-56, 61, 64-65, 68-70)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 72)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 73)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment in its entirety or, in the alternative, in part, of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 50).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Efkon AG to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council;

3. Orders the Parliament and the Commission to bear their own costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2006 − Commission v TRENDS and Others

(Case T-448/04)

Arbitration clause – Plea of inadmissibility – Action against the members of a company

1. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 32, 34-35)

2. Procedure – More than one defendant (see para. 43)

Re:

APPLICATION made by the Commission for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect of two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community programme ‘Telematics applications of common interest’

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 January 2008 – Efkon v Parliament and Council

(Case T-298/04)

Annulment – Directive 2004/52/EC – Interoperability of electronic road toll systems – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. 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 2004/52) (see paras 53-56, 61, 64-65, 68-70)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 72)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 73)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in its entirety or, in the alternative, in part, of Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 124, corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 50).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Efkon AG to bear its own costs and pay those of the Council;
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; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2004/813) (see paras 33-41

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings – Inadmissibility – Definition of position failing to satisfy the applicant – Not relevant (Art. 232 EC) (see paras 19, 22)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission to initiate proceedings for failure to act – Inadmissibility (Arts 226 EC and 232, third para., EC) (see paras 24-25)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Establishment of the subject-matter of a claim – Amendment of the forms of order initially sought at the stage of observations on the plea as to inadmissibility – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see para. 28)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for declaration of failure to act in that the Commission failed to adopt a decision on the applicant’s complaint against the French Republic

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2004/813) (see paras 43, 46-54, 71, 74)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 56)