| | CFIR-64 (Rules of Procedure)Measures of organisation of procedure    
| CFI (Rules of Procedure) | Article 65 | 1. The purpose of measures of organisation of procedure shall be to ensure that cases are prepared for hearing, procedures carried out and disputes resolved under the best possible conditions. They shall be prescribed by the Court of First Instance, after hearing the Advocate General.
2. Measures of organisation of procedure shall, in particular, have as their purpose:
(a) to ensure efficient conduct of the written and oral procedure and to facilitate the taking of evidence;
(b) to determine the points on which the parties must present further argument or which call for measures of inquiry;
(c) to clarify the forms of order sought by the parties, their pleas in law and arguments and the points at issue between them;
(d) to facilitate the amicable settlement of proceedings.
3. Measures of organisation of procedure may, in particular, consist of:
(a) putting questions to the parties;
(b) inviting the parties to make written or oral submissions on certain aspects of the proceedings;
(c) asking the parties or third parties for information or particulars;
(d) asking for documents or any papers relating to the case to be produced;
(e) summoning the parties’ agents or the parties in person to meetings.
4. Each party may, at any stage of the procedure, propose the adoption or modification of measures of organisation of procedure. In that case, the other parties shall be heard before those measures are prescribed.
Where the procedural circumstances so require, the Registrar shall inform the parties of the measures envisaged by the Court of First Instance and shall give them an opportunity to submit comments orally or in writing.
5. If the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session or as the Grand Chamber decides to prescribe measures of organisation of procedure and does not undertake such measures itself, it shall entrust the task of so doing to the Chamber to which the case was originally assigned or to the Judge-Rapporteur.
If a Chamber prescribes measures of organisation of procedure and does not undertake such measures itself, it shall entrust the task to the Judge-Rapporteur.
The Advocate General shall take part in measures of organisation of procedure. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-41/08-R
Vakakis International | 76-78 | CFIR-64
CFIR-65
CFIR-105.2 | 76 It should first be noted that under the first subparagraph of Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure the President of the Court of First Instance is to decide whether a preparatory inquiry is necessary. Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure provides that measures of inquiry include the production of documents. Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure allows the Court to adopt measures of organisation of procedure, including the production of documents or any papers relating to the case.
77 It should next be noted that the documents at issue relate solely to the requirement that there be a prima facie case.
78 As the application for interim measures falls to be dismissed by reason of lack of urgency, without it being necessary to consider whether the other conditions for the grant of such measures are satisfied, in particular the requirement that there be a prima facie case, the President considers that the documents in question are not relevant to the current application for interim measures and that there is therefore no need to adopt the measures regarding the documents at issue which the applicant has applied for. | T-411/06
Sogelma | 91-92 | CFIR-64 | 91 It must be borne in mind that the applicant states, in the application, that it is bringing the action on its own behalf and as agent of the company DOK ING. That relates, first, to the requests for annulment. Secondly, the applicant quantifies, in the application, both the damage which it claims to have suffered and the damage allegedly suffered by DOK ING, and asks the Court to order the EAR to pay to it the full amount of the sum in question.
92 The Court asked the applicant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, to supply details of the ‘instructions’ which it received from the company DOK ING, to lodge in the Court file any relevant documentation and to express a view on the admissibility of the manner in which it had chosen to proceed in order to defend the rights of the company DOK ING. | T-411/06
Sogelma | 95-102 | ECT-230
CFIR-64 | 95 It is, first of all, clear that Sogelma is the only applicant in the present case. In particular, neither DOK ING nor the consortium formed by the applicant and DOK ING are parties to these proceedings. Moreover, it must be noted that the applicant does not claim that DOK ING has assigned its rights to the applicant.
96 It is necessary therefore to examine whether the three documents which the applicant has produced, at the request of the Court, enable it to assert the rights of DOK ING in the context of the present proceedings.
97 As regards the document titled ‘Joint Venture Agreement’, dated 27 September 2005, Article 4 thereof provides that the applicant, as Group Leader, has authority in particular to assume obligations on behalf of DOK ING and that it may sign, on behalf of the joint venture, all documentation required for the performance of works covered by the contract. It must be pointed out that this agreement makes no reference to the possibility of the applicant bringing legal proceedings to assert the rights of DOK ING.
98 As regards the document titled ‘Power of attorney’, signed on 6 December 2005 by a representative of DOK ING, it must be observed that this also makes no reference to the possibility of the applicant bringing legal proceedings to assert the rights of DOK ING.
99 Only the third document submitted by the applicant, a letter from DOK ING dated 1 December 2006 and addressed to the applicant, relates to legal proceedings. That letter reads as follows: ‘With reference to the above tender and the subsequent cancellation by the Contracting Authority, we her[e]by authorize you as the Joint Venture Leader, to instruct your lawyer to take legal action against the [EAR], for damages caused by the tender cancellation, also on our behalf.’
100 Accordingly, that document serves only to authorise the applicant to instruct its lawyer to take legal proceedings on behalf of DOK ING also. The document does not however deal with the form and content of the legal proceedings referred to and, consequently, provides no detail of those matters. In particular it does not provide that the applicant is entitled to bring legal proceedings in its name alone and to thereby assert the rights of DOK ING. It is clear that the fact that a company instructs a lawyer for the purpose of bringing legal proceedings also on behalf of a second company normally means that the lawyer will bring the action in the name of two applicants, or by means of two separate actions.
101 It is not acceptable for a company to assert in legal proceedings the rights of another company if it has not been unequivocally instructed to do so. There is an interest in having the status of applicant in order to be able to determine the scope of the case and, if necessary, to bring an appeal against the judgment to which an action gives rise. Moreover, a company which wishes to obtain payment of a certain sum as compensation for alleged damage normally wants the court to order the defendant to pay that sum to it and not to another company.
102 It follows from the foregoing that the documents provided by the applicant are not such as to establish that it was instructed by DOK ING to assert, as the sole applicant, the rights of the DOK ING before the Community judicature. 103 It follows that the action is inadmissible to the extent that the applicant asserts the rights of DOK ING. | T-411/06
Sogelma | 152-158 | CFIR-64-impl | 152 As regards the applicant’s request that the Court order the EAR to produce all the documents relating to the award procedure at issue, it must be noted that, according to the case-law, to enable the Court to determine whether it is conducive to the proper conduct of the procedure to order the production of certain documents, the party requesting production must identify the documents requested and provide the Court with at least minimum information indicating the utility of those documents for the purposes of the proceedings (Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paragraph 93).
153 In support of that request, the applicant claims that the EAR has provided explanations that are general and succinct in support of its decisions and that it had asked the EAR to produce those documents, but had no response. Furthermore, the applicant argues that it has the right to know the reasons which led to cancellation of the tender procedure so as to be assured that the contracting authority’s acts are lawful.
154 As regards, first, the fact that the applicant requested from the EAR production of documents relating to the award procedure and that that request met with no response, it must be observed that that fact is not in itself capable of demonstrating the utility of those documents for the purposes of the proceedings.
155 In relation, secondly, to the applicant’s argument that the EAR provided explanations which were general and succinct in support of its decisions, it has been determined, in paragraphs 123 and 124 above, that the EAR communicated to the applicant an adequate statement of reasons for its decision to cancel the tender procedure. In that regard, the Court has sufficient information in the documents on the court file and it does not, moreover, appear that the documents relating to the award procedure could serve any purpose in the assessment of the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided.
156 As regards, third and last, the applicant’s argument that it has the right to know the reasons which led to cancellation of the tender procedure so as to be assured of the legality of the contracting authority’s acts, it must be held that the applicant has presented no objective evidence to suggest that the real reason for the cancellation of the procedure differs from that set out in the letter of 9 October 2006 (see paragraphs 140 to 142 above).
157 In that context, it must be observed that an application for the production of all the documents relating to the award procedure at issue, as sought by the applicant, is equivalent to a request for the production of the EAR’s internal file. It is clear that examination by the Community judicature of the internal file of a Community body with a view to verifying whether that body’s decision was influenced by factors other than those indicated in the statement of the reasons is an exceptional measure of inquiry. Such a measure presupposes that the circumstances surrounding the decision in question give rise to serious doubts as to the real reasons and in particular, to suspicions that those reasons were extraneous to the objectives of Community law and hence amounted to a misuse of powers (see, to that effect, as regards decisions of the Commission, order in Joined Cases 142/84 and 156/84 BAT and Reynolds v Commission [1986] ECR 1899, paragraph 11). However, it is clear that in the present case there are no such circumstances.
158 It follows from the foregoing that the applicant has not presented evidence to demonstrate the utility of all the documents relating to the award procedure being produced for the purposes of these proceedings. The request for production of those documents must therefore be rejected. | T-59/05
Evropaiki Dynamiki | 35-37 | CFIR-64 | 35 Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Third Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure and, as measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of its Rules of Procedure, asked the Commission to provide it with certain information and to produce certain documents, including, in particular, the evaluation Committee report and the bid of the successful tenderer. The Commission acceded to this request in part, stating that it was not able to produce a nonconfidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer within the period stipulated.
36 The parties set out their arguments and replied to questions put by the Court at the hearing on 16 May 2007. The Court asked the Commission to produce the non-confidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer and set a new time-limit of 28 May 2007.
37 By letter of 25 May 2007, the Commission requested an extension of that period. The Court upheld that request and granted a further extension until 12 June 2007. A non-confidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer was placed on the case-file by the Commission on 12 June 2007. The applicant submitted its written observations on that document on 2 July 2007. After the Commission had set out in writing its views on the applicant’s observations, the oral procedure was closed on 19 July 2007. | T-465/04
Evropaïki Dinamiki | 28-30 | CFIR-64 | 28 Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court (Third Chamber) decided to open the oral procedure and, and within the framework of measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, asked the applicant to reply in writing to a set of questions and the Commission to produce certain documents, including, in particular, the evaluation report and the bid of the successful tenderer. The Commission partly acceded to this request, stating that it was not able to produce a non-confidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer within the period prescribed.
29 The oral arguments of the parties and their answers to the questions put by the Court were heard at the hearing on 16 May 2007. The Court asked the Commission to produce the non-confidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer and set a new time-limit of 28 May 2007.
30 By letter of 25 May 2007 the Commission requested an extension of that period. The Court acceded to that request and granted a further extension until 12 June 2007. A non-confidential version of the bid of the successful tenderer was placed with the case-file by the Commission on 8 June 2007. The applicant submitted its written observations on that document on 2 July 2007. After the Commission had in writing stated its views on the applicant’s observations, the oral procedure was closed on 19 July 2007. | T-465/04
Evropaïki Dinamiki | 81 | CFIR-64-impl | 81 Lastly, as regards the applicant’s request that the Commission be ordered to produce the documents sought in the application, it suffices to state that the Court, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, called on the Commission to produce the evaluation report and that the Commission complied with that request. | T-303/04-R2
European Dynamics | 81-83 | CFIR-64
CFIR-65
CFIR-105.2
CFIR-109 | 81. As was already held in the Order of 10 November, the applicant's request for production of the documents at issue can be understood only as an application for measures of inquiry or measures of organisation of procedure.
82. Under the first subparagraph of Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure the President of the Court assesses whether a preparatory inquiry should be ordered. Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure specifies that measures of inquiry include inter alia the production of documents. Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure allows the Court to adopt measures of organisation of procedure, including inter alia the production of documents or any papers relating to the case.
83. Since the present application for interim measures must be dismissed for failure to meet the conditions of Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure, the President considers that the documents at issue are of no relevance for the examination of the present application for interim measures, and that the measures sought by the applicant concerning those documents should not therefore be adopted. | T-303/04-R1
European Dynamics | 88-90 | CFIR-64
CFIR-65
CFIR-105.2 | 88. The applicant's request for production of the documents at issue can be understood only as an application for measures of inquiry or measures of organisation of procedure.
89. It must be recalled that under the first subparagraph of Article 105(2) of the Rules of Procedure the President of the Court assesses whether a preparatory inquiry should be ordered. Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure specifies that measures of inquiry include inter alia the production of documents. Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure allows the Court to adopt measures of organisation of procedure, including inter alia the production of documents or any papers relating to the case.
90. Since the application for interim measures must be dismissed for want of urgency, without there being any need to examine whether the other conditions for granting interim measures are satisfied, in particular the condition relating to a prima facie case, the President considers that the documents at issue are of no relevance for the examination of the present application for interim measures, and that the measures sought by the applicant concerning those documents should not therefore be adopted. | T-148/04
TQ3 Travel Solutions | 106 | CFIR-64 | 106. In the context of the measures of organisation of procedure, the Court inter alia asked the intervener to produce data relating to its tender. The Court therefore considers that it has obtained sufficient information from the documents in the file to dispose of the case without ordering the Commission to produce all the documents relating to the award of lot 1, as requested by the applicant under Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure. |
|
|
