Textbook Eu Competition and State Aid Rules Public and Private Enforcement 1St Edition Vesna Tomljenovic Ebook All Chapter PDF

EU Competition and State Aid Rules:
Public and Private Enforcement 1st

Edition Vesna Tomljenovi■
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-competition-and-state-aid-rules-public-and-private-
enforcement-1st-edition-vesna-tomljenovic/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules Second

Edition Albert Sanchez Graells
https://textbookfull.com/product/public-procurement-and-the-eu-
competition-rules-second-edition-albert-sanchez-graells/
Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in

Europe Legal and Economic Perspectives 1st Edition Kai
Hüschelrath
https://textbookfull.com/product/public-and-private-enforcement-
of-competition-law-in-europe-legal-and-economic-perspectives-1st-
edition-kai-huschelrath/
Harmonisation of EU Competition Law Enforcement Jurgita

Malinauskaite
https://textbookfull.com/product/harmonisation-of-eu-competition-
law-enforcement-jurgita-malinauskaite/
Higher Education Institutions in the EU: Between

Competition and Public Service 1st Edition Andrea
Gideon (Auth.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/higher-education-institutions-
in-the-eu-between-competition-and-public-service-1st-edition-
andrea-gideon-auth/
Coherence in EU competition law First Edition Sauter
https://textbookfull.com/product/coherence-in-eu-competition-law-
first-edition-sauter/
The enforcement of EU law and values : ensuring member

states' compliance 1st Edition Jakab
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-enforcement-of-eu-law-and-
values-ensuring-member-states-compliance-1st-edition-jakab/
Public Sector Accounting, Auditing and Control in South

Eastern Europe Vesna Vaši■ek
https://textbookfull.com/product/public-sector-accounting-
auditing-and-control-in-south-eastern-europe-vesna-vasicek/
EU Law of Competition and Trade in the Pharmaceutical

Sector 1st Edition Pablo Figueroa (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/eu-law-of-competition-and-trade-
in-the-pharmaceutical-sector-1st-edition-pablo-figueroa-editor/
State aid law of the European Union 1st Edition Hofmann
https://textbookfull.com/product/state-aid-law-of-the-european-
union-1st-edition-hofmann/
Europeanization and Globalization 3
Vesna Tomljenović
Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat
Vlatka Butorac Malnar
Ivana Kunda Editors
EU Competition
and State Aid
Rules
Public and Private Enforcement
Europeanization and Globalization
Volume 3
Series editors
Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat
Rijeka, Croatia
Siniša Rodin
Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Gerald G. Sander
Ludwigsburg, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13467
Vesna Tomljenović • Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat •
Vlatka Butorac Malnar • Ivana Kunda
Editors
EU Competition and State

Aid Rules
Public and Private Enforcement
Editors
Vesna Tomljenović Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat
General Court of EU Faculty of Law
Luxembourg, Luxembourg University of Rijeka
Rijeka, Croatia
Vlatka Butorac Malnar Ivana Kunda

Faculty of Law Faculty of Law
University of Rijeka University of Rijeka
Rijeka, Croatia Rijeka, Croatia
ISSN 2366-0953 ISSN 2366-0961 (electronic)

Europeanization and Globalization
ISBN 978-3-662-47961-2 ISBN 978-3-662-47962-9 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959166
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE
The registered company address is: Heidelberger Platz 3, 14197 Berlin, Germany
Preface
The effective enforcement of competition and state aid rules is one of the keys to the
successful economic development and stability of the EU internal market. While
the Commission plays the central role in the application of EU state aid rules, the
situation is somewhat different when it comes to the application of EU competition
rules. Following the entry into force of Regulation 1/2003, national enforcers have
been given the authority and duty to apply EU competition rules in all cases
affecting trade between Member States. Consequently, proper and uniform appli-
cation across Member States is one of the biggest challenges in this area of law. The
novelties are many as it is an ever-changing body of law constantly being adapted to
new market situations. We are witnessing a proliferation of decisions and judg-
ments at both the EU and national levels, continuously reshaping the landscape of
competition law. Legislative activities are not lagging behind either. One of the
most recent developments concerns the adoption of the Directive on Antitrust
Damages Actions, which has created as many opportunities as obstacles.
Against this backdrop, an international conference was organised to provide a
platform to discuss recent case law and legislative developments in the separate but
related areas of competition and state aid law. We succeeded in bringing together a
unique gathering of EU judges, academics and professionals who provided out-
standing contributions at what became the fourth Petar Šarčević international
conference: ‘EU Competition and State Aid Rules: Interaction between public
and private enforcement’. The conference, held on 9 and 10 September 2015 in
Rovinj, Croatia, was organised by various Croatian and foreign institutions: the
Croatian Comparative Law Association (CCLA); the Institute for European and
Comparative Law (IECL) of the Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia; the
Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway; the Jean Monnet Inter-University Centre of
Excellence Opatija, Croatia; the Croatian Competition Agency (CCA); and the
Croatian Judicial Academy.
This book is the direct result of the named conference. Impossible as it is to
discuss all recent developments in a single volume, the book focuses on selected
issues related to the enforcement of competition rules on one hand and state aid
v
vi Preface
rules on the other. The book’s 14 chapters are arranged into four parts. The first part
is devoted to the role of courts in the public enforcement of competition law at the
EU and national levels. The second part deals with selected challenges of the public
enforcement of EU competition rules before the Commission. Selected issues on
private enforcement of EU competition rules are tackled in the third part of the
book. The fourth part examines the most challenging issues related to the enforce-
ment of state aid rules.
We are particularly grateful and honoured to be able to present in this volume
contributions from several judges and legal secretaries of the General Court of the
EU, including the President of the General Court of the EU, the Honourable Judge
Marc Jaeger. There are no persons better placed to discuss the role of the courts in
the enforcement of competition rules than those involved in the decision-making
process. Each member of the General Court of the EU provided meaningful, hands-
on and essential insight into the topic covered. Their generous support and involve-
ment in the entire project would not have been possible had it not been for one of the
editors, Professor Vesna Tomljenović, as we still like to call her, who became the
first Croatian Judge at the General Court of the EU in 2013, after an academic
career of nearly three decades at the Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Croatia.
Of course, we extend our deepest appreciation to all our authors, whose enthusiastic
collaboration and expertise make this book a valuable contribution to the practice
and science of competition and state aid law.
As editors, we hope you will enjoy reading this book as much as we enjoyed
preparing it, and we are confident that it will serve you as a valuable source of
information and insight.
Luxembourg, Luxembourg Vesna Tomljenović

Rijeka, Croatia Nada Bodiroga-Vukobrat
Rijeka, Croatia Ivana Kunda
Rijeka, Croatia Vlatka Butorac Malnar
July 2017
Contents
Part I The Role of Courts in Public Enforcement of EU

Competition Rules
25 Years of the General Court: Looking Back and Forward . . . . . . . . . 3
Marc Jaeger
The General Court as the EU Competition Court? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Miro Prek and Silvère Lefèvre
The Enforcement of EU Competition Law by National Courts . . . . . . . 49
Jasminka Pecotić Kaufman and Siniša Petrović
Judicial Review in EU and Croatian Competition Cases: The
Procedure and Intensity of Judicial Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Dubravka Akšamović
Enforcement of the EU Competition Rules in Lithuania: Application
of the ‘Effect on Trade’ Concept in the Enforcement Practice
of the National Competition Authority and Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Alexandr Svetlicinii
Part II Challenges of Public Enforcement of EU Competition Rules

Before the Commission
The Role of the Settlement Procedure and Leniency Programme
in the European Commission’s Fight Against Cartels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Marc Barennes
Fines and Fundamental Rights: New Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Ludovic Bernardeau
vii
viii Contents
Part III Selected Issues of Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

The Disclosure of Evidence Under the ‘Antitrust Damages’
Directive 2014/104/EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Anca D. Chirita
The Kone Case: A Missed Opportunity to Put the Standard
of Causation Under the Umbrella of the EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Vlatka Butorac Malnar
Cross-Border Aspects of EU Competition Law Enforcement:
Comprehensive Reform Needed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Mihail Danov
Part IV Contemporary Topics of State Aid Law Enforcement

The Role of National Courts in the Enforcement of the European State
Aid Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Viktor Kreuschitz and Nuria Bermejo
Tax Incentives as State Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
Nicola Chesaites
State Aid and Gambling Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Ana Pošćić
Certain Aspects of State Aid to Services of General Economic Interest . . . 291
Marijana Liszt and Edita Čulinović Herc
Contributors
Dubravka Akšamović Faculty of Law, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia

Marc Barennes General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
Nuria Bermejo Faculty of Law, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid,
Spain
Ludovic Bernardeau General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
University of Paris-Nanterre, Nanterre, France
Vlatka Butorac Malnar Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
Nicola Chesaites Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, London, UK
Anca D. Chirita Durham University, Durham, UK
Edita Čulinović Herc Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
Mihail Danov University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Marc Jaeger General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Viktor Kreuschitz General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg,
Luxembourg
Silvère Lefèvre General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Marijana Liszt Posavec, Rašica & Liszt Law Firm, Zagreb, Croatia
Jasminka Pecotić Kaufman Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
ix
x Contributors
Siniša Petrović Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Ana Pošćić Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
Miro Prek General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Alexandr Svetlicinii University of Macau, Macau, China
Reviewers
Hana Horak
Faculty of Economics, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Nina Tepeš
Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
Part I
The Role of Courts in Public Enforcement
of EU Competition Rules
25 Years of the General Court: Looking Back
and Forward
Marc Jaeger
Abstract In this article, the author, the President of the General Court of the
European Union since 2007, reflects on the past, current and future EU judicial
architecture. The first part of the contribution focuses on the structural evolutions
that the General Court has gone through, achieving revolutionary solutions as to
how the way cases are dealt with can be improved. However, the success story of
this jurisdiction has led to an increase in its workload, creating a worrying backlog.
Therefore, the second part addresses the various solutions implemented to tackle
this problem, from the entry into force of new procedural rules last July to the
foreseeable impact of the structural reform that will double the number of judges of
the General Court.
1 Introductory Remarks
25 Years of evolution, 25 years of revolution, 25 years of production – no one

would contest the fact that it would be hard to sum up these years in a few pages. It
might seem to be rather daring to sketch 25 years of transformation in the judicial
landscape of the EU and to envision how bright its future can be in a contribution so
limited in space. However, just because the task seems impossible does not mean
that it should not be undertaken. This has actually been the motto of the General
Court since its establishment and its spirit for 25 years.
This article follows my contribution on the occasion of the 4th Petar Šarčević International
Scientific Conference entitled ‘Rethinking the role of the General Court – EU competition and
state aid rules: interaction between public and private enforcement’, which took place in Rovinj
(Croatia) on 9 April 2015. I would like to thank Mr. Vivien Terrien for his precious assistance in
writing this article, which reflects the situation as at 7 May 2015. It thus gives an updated view of
my contribution ‘The EU General Court: institutional aspects and perspectives’, published in
French in “Cours du Master international Droit de l’UE”, vol. 4 “Le Tribunal de l’UE”, Sofia 2014.
All views expressed are strictly personal and are solely the responsibility of the author.
M. Jaeger (*)
President, General Court of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
e-mail: Marc.Jaeger@curia.europa.eu
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 3

V. Tomljenović et al. (eds.), EU Competition and State Aid Rules,
Europeanization and Globalization 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47962-9_1
4 M. Jaeger
Remember the Past to Foresee the Future An anniversary represents the perfect
occasion to reflect on the past and also to consider directions to be followed in the
near future. However, before looking ahead and playing as fortune teller regarding
the architecture that the European Union judiciary may take (see Sect. 3), one
should always look back to measure the distance covered so far, the achievements,
the result of all these bricks patiently fashioned and put together to build a coherent
and efficient judicial structure: the General Court (see Sect. 2).
2 The General Court: A Look Back
‘In souls nobly born, valour does not depend upon age.’1 Already in its early years,
the General Court demonstrated the key role it could play in a mature EU judicial
system. Its hard work and thorough and well-founded analysis were acknowledged,
and the court saw its scope of action increased. Not only was its solid first-instance
level (see Sect. 2.1) affirmed, but it also saw unprecedented and creative judicial
developments (see Sect. 2.2).
2.1 From ‘Specialised’ to ‘General’: The Recognition

of an Essential First-Tier Court
The recognition of the need to add a true first-tier level to the EU judicial system did
not occur in a day but occurred in stages. The founding idea was far from the current
structure of the General Court. At first, the EU legislators envisaged a specialised
body limited in terms of subject matter and the nature of its parties (see Sect. 2.1.1).
Experience and success led to the reshaping of this entity to give to rights holders a
new interlocutor that could dedicate its time to hear all types of complex factual and
legal complaints (see Sect. 2.1.2).
2.1.1 A Specialised Court: Subject Matter and Parties
Most of the time forgotten, often overlooked, in its first years, the General Court
was the first specialised court of the European Union. Not only were its compe-
tences restricted to a limited number of fields, but the nature of potential claimants
was also circumscribed to very specific categories of applicants.
1
P Corneille, Le Cid, Act II, Scene II (personal translation).
25 Years of the General Court: Looking Back and Forward 5
Specialised in Terms of Subject Matter In 1986, the Single European Act2

established the foundations of this court. Adding Article 168a to the EEC Treaty,
Article 11 of the Single European Act stated:
The EEC Treaty shall be supplemented by the following provisions:

‘Article 168a
1. At the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission and
the European Parliament, the Council may, acting unanimously, attach to the
Court of Justice a court with jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance,
subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only and in
accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, (. . .) classes of action
(. . .)’ (emphasis added).
Behind this provision, the EU legislator’s intention was to relieve the Court of
Justice. This had become overloaded with dense factual cases, and it no longer had
time to examine them in detail3 as its primary task resided in interpreting EU law,
which meant focusing all its resources on ruling on points of law. Hence, the idea
arose of creating a first instance tribunal to deal with such complex cases.4 How-
ever, from the outset, this option was subject to conditions and limitations. Article
11 of the Single European Act specified:
2
Single European Act [1987] OJ L169/1. The Single European Act was signed on 17 February
1986 in Luxembourg (by Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Nether-
lands, Portugal and the United Kingdom) and on 24 February 1986 in The Hague (by Denmark,
Italy and Greece). It entered into force on 1 July 1987.
3
From the ECJ’s establishment, the duration of proceedings regarding direct actions increased
significantly from 8.5 months in 1970 to 24 months in 1988.
4
See, in this sense, the fourth, fifth and sixth recitals of Council Decision No 88/591/ECSC, EEC,
Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities
[1988] OJ L 319/1:
Whereas, in respect of actions requiring close examination of complex facts, the establish-
ment of a second court will improve the judicial protection of individual interests;
Whereas it is necessary, in order to maintain the quality and effectiveness of judicial review
in the Community legal order, to enable the Court to concentrate its activities on its
fundamental task of ensuring uniform interpretation of Community law;
Whereas it is therefore necessary to make use of the powers granted by (. . .) Article 168a of
the EEC Treaty (. . .) and to transfer to the Court of First Instance jurisdiction to hear and
determine at first instance certain classes of action or proceeding which frequently require
an examination of complex facts, that is to say actions or proceedings brought by servants of
the Communities and also, (. . .) so far as the EEC Treaty is concerned, by natural or legal
persons in competition matters, (. . .) (emphasis added).
6 M. Jaeger

‘Article 168a
accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain classes of
action or proceeding (. . .)’ (emphasis added).
Accordingly, when the Council adopted the birth act of the General Court—at
that time called the Court of First Instance of the European Communities or referred
to by its acronym, CFI – in 1988, it was specified that in substance this new court:
shall exercise at first instance the jurisdiction conferred on the Court of Justice
by the Treaties establishing the Communities and by the acts adopted in imple-
mentation thereof:
(a) in disputes between the Communities and their servants (. . .);
(c) in actions brought against an institution of the Communities (. . .) [in relation]
to the implementation of the competition rules applicable to undertakings.
(. . .)5 (emphasis added).
Therefore, the Court of First Instance became the only EU jurisdiction to look at
the facts and law of competition and staff cases and, consequently, the first
specialised judicial body in the EU.
Specialised in Terms of Parties Initially, the Court of First Instance’s jurisdiction
was limited not only to specific fields of law but also to a specific type of litigation.
Article 11 of the Single European Act specified:

‘Article 168a
1. At the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission
and the European Parliament, the Council may, acting unanimously, attach to
the Court of Justice a court with jurisdiction to hear and determine at first
5
Council Decision No 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988 establishing a Court of
First Instance of the European Communities [1988] OJ L319/1, Article 3(1). This text also
transfers competences regarding actions introduced by undertakings and associations in the field
of levies, production, prices, cartels and mergers within the framework of the ECSC Treaty. Note
also that Article 3(3) set a two-year period (from the start of the CFI’s operation) to review, ‘in the
light of experience, including the development of jurisprudence’, whether this transfer of compe-
tence could not also concern ‘actions brought against an institution of the Communities by natural
or legal persons (. . .) and relating to measures to protect trade within the meaning of Article 113 of
that Treaty in the case of dumping and subsidies’.
instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law

only and in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain
classes of action or proceeding brought by natural or legal persons. (. . .)’
(emphasis added).
Article 3 of Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, indicated as

follows:
1. The Court of First Instance shall exercise at first instance the jurisdiction
conferred on the Court of Justice by the Treaties establishing the Communities
and by the acts adopted in implementation thereof:
(c) in actions brought against an institution of the Communities by natural or
legal persons (. . .) [in relation] to the implementation of the competition rules
applicable to undertakings.
2. Where the same natural or legal person brings an action which the Court of
First Instance has jurisdiction to hear by virtue of paragraph 1 of this Article and
an action for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution
through the act or failure to act which is the subject of the first action, the
Court of First Instance shall also have jurisdiction to hear and determine the
action for compensation for that damage (emphasis added).
Therefore, the CFI’s stand was restricted in terms of audience since both the
Single European Act and the 1988 Council decision circumscribed the nature of
litigants who could have their case trialled before the General Court solely to
natural or legal persons. Only such plaintiffs could have their claims heard by the
CFI. This new court was thus specialised. First, it was restricted to legal actions
seeking the annulment of an EU act, pursuing a failure to act by EU institutions and
attempting to obtain damages as compensation for a violation committed by these
institutions. Second, such actions had to be introduced by natural or legal persons.
Considering all the above, an intermediary conclusion can be asserted: as far as
one can look back into the General Court’s past, one will find a court specialised in
classes of action introduced by individuals (including civil servants) and companies
when dealing with competition matters or the EU Staff Regulation. This landscape
would soon take a completely different shape (see Sect. 2.1.2).
2.1.2 General Court: Subject Matter and Parties
The first 10 years of operation of the CFI would be decisive in determining this new
court not as a specialised judicial body, as intended at the beginning, but as an
unavoidable link within the EU judicial chain, whose jurisdiction would cover all
fields of law and whose bar would be more open than initially thought.
8 M. Jaeger
General in Terms of Subject Matter Less than 4 years after its start, the Court of
First Instance was given the competence to rule on all types of action brought by
natural and legal persons, i.e. with no limitation regarding the field of law
concerned. Article 1 of Council Decision 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom,6 states:
Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom is hereby amended as follows:
1. the following shall be substituted for Article 3(1):

‘The Court of First Instance shall exercise at first instance the jurisdiction
conferred on the Court of Justice by the Treaties establishing the Communities
and by the acts adopted in implementation thereof (. . .):
(a) in disputes as referred to in Article 179 [EU staff cases] of the EEC Treaty
(. . .);
(c) in actions brought by natural or legal persons pursuant to the second
paragraph of Article 173 [action for annulment], the third paragraph of Article
175 [action for failure to act] and Articles 178 [action for damages] and
181 [compromissory clauses] of the EEC Treaty;
2. paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3 are hereby repealed; (. . .) [indications added].
The 1993 Council decision realised a blunt transfer of competences from the
Court of Justice to the Court of First Instance that transformed the latter from a
specialised court into a general court in terms of subject matter.7 In EU judicial
history, 8 June 1993 should be regarded as a red-letter day. On this day, the EU first-
tier court became—and still is—the sole and unique interlocutor for individuals and
the business world. Only before this tribunal can points regarding the facts and law
of cases introduced by these litigants be examined, discussed and trialled. Today,
with the exception of EU civil servants, the General Court is and remains the court
of the EU people and companies active on EU territory.
General in Terms of Parties Almost a decade would be necessary to move to the

next stage – a new age for the Court of First Instance, which would shed its skin of a
court solely for ‘persons’, whether natural or legal. Article 11 of the Single European
Act expressly excluded any other type of litigant from the CFI’s jurisdiction:
6
Council Decision No 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 8 June 1993 amending Decision 88/591/
ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC).
7
Article 3 of Council Decision 93/350/ECSC, EEC, Euratom postponed the empowerment of the
CFI in the field of trade protection measures (dumping and subsidies) to a later date and made it
dependent upon the adoption of a specific decision by the Council. Accordingly, Council Decision
94/149/ECSC, EC of 7 March 1994 amending Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC amending
Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First Instance of the European
Communities [1994] OJ L 66/29 fixed the entry into force as 15 March 1994.
The EEC Treaty Shall be Supplemented by the Following Provisions:

‘Article 168a
accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain classes of action
or proceeding brought by natural or legal persons. That court shall not be
competent to hear and determine actions brought by Member States or by
Community Institutions (. . .)’ (emphasis added).
In other words, litigation initiated by Member States, for instance, was the Court
of Justice’s private turf. However, in 2001, the Treaty of Nice broke this taboo by
opening the CFI’s courtroom to certain types of action brought by Member States.8
Article 31 of this treaty, consolidating the 1993 Council decision at the highest EU
normative hierarchy, states:
Article 225 [ex-article 168a] shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 225
1. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine at first
instance actions or proceedings referred to in Articles 230, [ex-article 173]
232, [ex-article 175] 235, [ex-article 178] 236 [ex-article 179] and 238, -
[ex-article 181] with the exception of (. . .) those reserved in the Statute for the
Court of Justice. The Statute may provide for the Court of First Instance to have
jurisdiction for other classes of action or proceeding. (. . .)’ [indications added]
(emphasis added).
Annexed to this treaty, the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice
specifies in Article 51:
By way of exception to the rule laid down in Article 225(1) of the EC Treaty
(. . .), the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in actions brought by the
Member States, by the institutions of the Communities and by the European
Central Bank (emphasis added).
Thus, it could be considered that, despite the general terms used in the new
Article 225 of the EC Treaty, due to the express exception laid down in Article 51 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice, there were no changes as to the nature of
applicants who could introduce an action before the Court of First Instance. This
would overlook Declaration 12, annexed to the Treaty of Nice, on Article 225 of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, which clearly indicates as follows:
8
Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1.
10 M. Jaeger
The Conference calls on the Court of Justice and the Commission to give overall
consideration as soon as possible to the division of jurisdiction between the
Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, in particular in the area of direct
actions, and to submit suitable proposals for examination by the competent
bodies as soon as the Treaty of Nice enters into force (emphasis added).
This call was well received, and the Council adopted Decision 2004/407/EC,
Euratom of 26 April 2004 amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the
Statute of the Court of Justice, Article 1 of which provides:
Article 51 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice shall be replaced
by the following:
‘Article 51
By way of derogation from the rule laid down in Article 225(1) of the EC Treaty
(. . .), jurisdiction shall be reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred
to in Articles 230 and 232 of the EC Treaty (. . .) when they are brought by a
Member State against:
(a) an act of or failure to act by the European Parliament or the Council, or by

both those institutions acting jointly, except for:
– decisions taken by the Council under the third subparagraph of Article
88(2) of the EC Treaty [State aid];
– acts of the Council adopted pursuant to a Council regulation concerning
measures to protect trade within the meaning of Article 133 of the EC
Treaty [dumping];
– acts of the Council by which the Council exercises implementing powers
in accordance with the third indent of Article 202 of the EC Treaty;
(b) against an act of or failure to act by the Commission under Article 11a of the
EC Treaty [enhanced cooperation].
Jurisdiction shall also be reserved to the Court of Justice in the actions referred
to in the same Articles when they are brought by an institution of the Commu-
nities or by the European Central Bank against an act of or failure to act by the
European Parliament, the Council, both those institutions acting jointly, or the
Commission, or brought by an institution of the Communities against an act of or
failure to act by the European Central Bank’ [indications added] (emphasis
added).
In other words, the EU legislator decided to empower judges of the Court of

First instance to hear cases filed by Member States against the Commission (except
in enhanced cooperation) and against the Council when one of its acts adopted in
the field of State aid, trade protection measures (dumping) or one of its acts by
which it exercises implementing powers is at stake. At the beginning of the new
millennium, the idea of what used to be a specialised court thus vanished, and the
CFI put on new clothes: a court dealing, more or less, with all EU topics for all
direct actions at first instance.
2.2 From First Instance Court to General Court
After the ‘specialised’ nature that was given to the CFI by the fairies bent over its
cradle, the second characteristic that the CFI was blessed with at its creation was the
‘first instance’ stamp it could affix to its judgments (see Sect. 2.2.1). However,
following the example of the first 10 years, the new millennium would leave its
mark on the CFI’s history by amending this last characteristic (see Sect. 2.2.2).
2.2.1 First Instance Court: General and Specific
No real need seems to exist in this contribution to dedicate too much time or space
to the well-known competence inherent in the lower court to review decisions at
first instance. The generally understood first instance judicial review power enables
this court to examine grounds based on errors of fact or errors of law. The question
that has occupied, and still occupies, most of the actors implied in litigation
proceedings at this level concerns the standard of review applied by judges when
dealing with cases introduced before them. This article does not, and actually
cannot, have the objective of analysing such a question. However, a less
commented aspect of the ‘first instance’ level might be worth briefly mentioning.
The evolution of the EU legal system has indeed brought to the first instance court
two different types of decision to be reviewed: those adopted by an institution that
are directly challenged and those that go through a quasi-judicial procedure before
being allowed to be reviewed by the EU first-tier court.
General First Instance The ‘first instance’ notion at the EU level should not be
confused with other types of first instance court that can be found in a variety of
Member States’ judicial systems. The CFI has mainly been conceived as a judicial
review court. In other words, it does not hear from one party the incriminating
elements found by a prosecutor and from the other the exculpatory ones in order to
try a case. Its task consists of examining the legality of a decision adopted by an EU
institution. Basically, it reviews an administrative procedure to ensure judicial
protection. Thus, the EU lower court mainly applies a legality review standard
that focuses on the external and internal legality of the contested decision. As a
result, it represents the first court to be involved in the process of confirming or
infirming the challenged act.
As an illustration of these general first instance proceedings, one can look at the
treatment by the General Court of antitrust cases where, for example, a Commission
decision sanctioning a company for its involvement in a cartel is challenged on the
12 M. Jaeger
grounds of violation of the right of defence during the pretrial phase and violation of
Article 101 TFEU due to a wrong finding concerning an agreement between
competitors based on a false interpretation of the facts. Points of fact and law are
contested at first instance, where the judges are in charge of exercising a legality
review and, in some instances, full jurisdiction.9 On appeal, the Court of Justice can
only rule on legal points raised by one of the parties with regard to the lower court’s
judgment.10
Other examples may be taken from all subject matters for which the first-tier
tribunal is competent, for example Council decisions taken in the field of restrictive
measures, such as asset-freezing sanctions imposed on banks involved in financing
Iranian nuclear activity, which are reviewed concerning facts and law at first
instance by the General Court and which represent the third-largest subject matter
in cases introduced (more than 7%) and completed (more than 8%) in 2014.11
Specific First Instance If the ‘first instance’ notion at the EU level is usually well
known in the EU public sphere in terms of its general meaning, as described above,
awareness of this notion going beyond the review of mere decisions adopted
following purely administrative procedures is less common. Interestingly, the
judicial review at first instance also concerns decisions adopted by quasi-judicial
bodies. A relevant illustration is given by the most common type of case introduced
before the General Court: intellectual property cases, most of them being EU
trademark cases.12 Litigation in this field concerns decisions adopted by the Office
for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter
OHIM), created in 1994. However, unlike Council or Commission decisions, before
being challenged before the General Court, OHIM decisions are reviewed by the
first instance department, which took the decision, and then by the OHIM Boards of
Appeal.13
Similar systems have been put in place since then. In 2007, the European
Chemical Agency (ECHA) was founded. This deals with the control of chemical
9
On the standard of review applied in competition law cases by the General Court, see Jaeger
(2011a, b)
10
See Article 58(1) of Protocol (No 3) on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,
annexed to the Treaties, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 741/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of [2012] OJ L 228/1, and by Article 9 of the Act concerning the
conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to
the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the
Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community [2012] OJ L 112/21.
11
See Court of Justice of the European Union, Annual Report 2014, pp 183 and 185, available via
Curia http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-04/en_ecj_annual_report_
2014_pr1.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.
12
See Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
[2009] OJ L78/1, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark [1995] OJ L
303/1.
13
See Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market. https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/
appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.
substances pursuant to the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation

and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).14 Certain ECHA decisions can be
appealed before the ECHA Board of Appeal.15 These decisions can then be
challenged before the General Court, which examines them as a first instance
tribunal.
Finally, as a reaction to the financial crisis, new measures to stabilise and
improve financial markets have been taken. The new supervisory framework for
financial regulation in Europe came into force in January 2011.16 This framework
put in place three new European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) for the financial
services sector: the European Banking Authority (EBA) based in London, the
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) in Frankfurt,
and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in Paris. Certain
decisions of these three authorities can be appealed before a joint body of the
ESAs called the Joint Board of Appeal.17 In turn, the Joint Board of Appeal’s
14
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December
2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
(REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and
repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94
as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC,
93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC.
15
See European Chemicals Agency. http://echa.europa.eu/regulations/appeals. Accessed
30 Apr 2015.
16
Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a
European Systemic Risk Board [2010] OJ L331/1; Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of
17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the
functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board [2010] OJ L331/162; Regulation (EU) No 1093/
2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European
Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and
repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC [2010] OJ L331/12; Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European
Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending
Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC [2010] OJ L331/48;
Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority),
amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC [2010] OJ
L331/84; Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November
2010 amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/
EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers
of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory
Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervi-
sory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) [2010] OJ L331/120.
17
See European Banking Authority. http://www.eba.europa.eu/about-us/organisation/joint-board-
of-appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; European Securities and Markets Authority. http://www.esma.
europa.eu/page/board-appeal. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; European Insurance and Occupational
Pensions Authority https://eiopa.europa.eu/Pages/About-EIOPA/Organisation/Board-of-Appeal/
Board-of-Appeal.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr 2015. See also the Rules of Procedure of the Board of
Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities, available via European Banking Authority.
14 M. Jaeger
decisions can be challenged before the General Court, which examines them as a
first instance tribunal. It should also be said in passing that the General Court is
competent to review decisions taken by the European Central Bank in the context of
the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM)18 and the Single Resolution Mechanism
(SRM).19
The development of EU agencies and bodies has reinforced this specific notion
of ‘first instance’. Still, this judicial review is of a ‘first instance’ nature: facts and
law are under the control of the first-tier tribunal, judgments of which are subject to
appeal proceedings limited to points of law before the Court of Justice. The first
instance nature of the EU lower court was such an intrinsic characteristic of this
court that it was even reflected in its name until 2009. However, the Treaty of
Lisbon changed its appellation, and the underlying reasons justifying this modifi-
cation were far from being cosmetic, flippant or devoid of purpose (see Sect. 2.2.2).
2.2.2 General Court: Appellate and Interpretative
With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the Court of
First Instance became the General Court. It is ‘General’ when the evolution of its
competence is taken into consideration, as described above. The early years of a
specialised court dealing with competition law matters and EU staff cases have long
gone. However, a first instance court it was, and a first instance court it is. One could
thus wonder whether this tribunal could not have been named the General Court of
First Instance if the purpose was to better reflect the fact that in terms of subject
matter this court has slowly been invested of wider competences than had once been
foreseen. The reason for the abandonment of the ‘first instance’ qualification has to
be sought elsewhere. Indeed, such a characterisation would have been outdated and
misleading, with the appellate and interpretative features of that court being
overlooked.
http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/15733/1_Rules_of_Procedure.pdf/6f607767-
8d00-464a-8448-4f730671d7bc. Accessed 30 Apr 2015; the Guidelines to the Parties to Appeal
Proceedings before the Joint Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities, available
via European Banking Authority. http://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/15733/2_Guide
lines_to_the_Parties.pdf/6ecd4b5f-9504-4d18-9f7e-19205ffd12a7. Accessed 30 Apr 2015.
18
Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the
European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit
institutions [2013] OJ L287/63; Regulation (EU) No 1022/2013 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a
European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards the conferral of specific
tasks on the European Central Bank pursuant to Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 [2013] OJ
L 287/5.
19
Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014
establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and
certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single
Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 [2014] OJ L 225/1.
Appellate Court One of the reasons for the name change is that the nature of the
control exercised by this lower court is no longer exclusively of a first instance kind.
For more than 10 years now, the General Court has also been an appellate court.
Signed on 26 February 2001, the Treaty of Nice entered into force almost 2 years
afterwards on 1 February 2003. Article 31 of this treaty specifically indicated:
Article 225 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 225
(. . .)
2. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine
actions or proceedings brought against decisions of the judicial panels set up
under Article 225a.
Decisions given by the Court of First Instance under this paragraph may excep-
tionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and
within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the
unity or consistency of Community law being affected. (. . .)’ (emphasis added).
In addition, Article 32 of the same treaty inserted a new provision, Article 225a,
to the Treaty establishing the European Community, stating:
The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
consulting the European Parliament and the Court of Justice or at the request of
the Court of Justice and after consulting the European Parliament and the
Commission, may create judicial panels to hear and determine at first instance
certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas. (. . .)
Decisions given by judicial panels may be subject to a right of appeal on points
of law only or, when provided for in the decision establishing the panel, a right of
appeal also on matters of fact, before the Court of First Instance. (. . .)20
(emphasis added).
In allowing the creation of judicial panels to hear and determine at first instance
certain classes of action or proceeding brought in specific areas and whose deci-
sions are challengeable before the CFI, this treaty gave to the CFI an appellate
jurisdiction. ‘Specific areas’, however, had to be identified. Declaration No 16 on
Article 225a of the Treaty establishing the European Community, attached to the
Treaty of Nice, gave a clear indication as to the first subject matter that should be
treated by such a judicial panel by specifically stating as follows:
The Conference asks the Court of Justice and the Commission to prepare as
swiftly as possible a draft decision establishing a judicial panel which has
20
Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1.
16 M. Jaeger
jurisdiction to deliver judgments at first instance on disputes between the Com-

munity and its servants21 (emphasis added).
Staff cases were thus nominated as the perfect candidate for a transfer and to be
taken over from the CFI’s competence and allocated to such a specialised court.
Accordingly, on 2 November 2004, the Council adopted Decision 2004/752/EC,
Euratom establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (hereinafter CST),
considered as an improvement in the operation of the Community courts’ system.22
The Council decided to attach the CST to the CFI and to limit appeals of CST
decisions before the CFI to points of law only ‘in the same conditions as those
governing appeals lodged at the Court of Justice against decisions of the Court of
First Instance’.23
From this moment, the appellate nature that used to be the privilege of the Court
of Justice became a shared feature between two courts in the EU judicial structure.
This new role was quickly endorsed by the CFI, which heard its first ten appeals in
2006 and reached a record figure in 2013 of 57 appeals. If a period of adaptation
was probably needed at the beginning—the duration of proceedings for this new
type of case increasing from 7.1 months in 2006 to 18.3 months in 2011—efficient
treatment of such cases was rapidly put in place, and the duration of proceedings
drastically dropped to 12.8 months in 2014. Compared to the 14.5 months needed
by the Court of Justice to deal with its appeals, the results of the General Court
could be seen as truly remarkable.24
Considering the above, it should be stated that the exclusive ‘first instance’
nature of the General Court belongs to history and that the Council, by creating this
judicial panel, along with the willingness of the EU legislator expressed in the
highest norms of EU law, improved the functioning of the entire EU court
architecture.
Interpretative Court However, not only is the General Court today a court of
appeal like the Court of Justice; it can also be an interpretative court, another
feature that is normally inherent to the definition of the Court of Justice. In this
regard, it should be recalled that the Single European Act expressly excluded
preliminary rulings from the CFI’s competences.25 Article 11 of this act clearly
indicated:
21
Treaty of Nice, Declaration on Article 225a of the Treaty establishing the European Community
[2001] OJ C 80/1.
22
Council Decision No 2004/752/EC Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal, [2004] OJ L 333/7, second recital and Article 1.
23
Council Decision No 2004/752/EC Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European
Union Civil Service Tribunal, [2004] OJ L 333/7, eighth recital.
24
The indicated figures are available in the annual reports of the Court of Justice of the European
Union, which can be found via Curia http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/. Accessed
30 Apr 2015.
25
Single European Act [1987] OJ L169/1, Article 168a, para 1.

‘Article 168a
accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain classes of action
or proceeding brought by natural or legal persons. That court shall not be
competent to hear and determine actions brought by Member States or by
Community Institutions or questions referred for a preliminary ruling under
Article 177. (. . .)’ (emphasis added).
However, 15 years, later the EU legislator, having seen the development of the
EU first-tier tribunal as described above, decided to reach certain conclusions quite
opposite to the initial approach laid down in the Single European Act. Indeed, the
Treaty of Nice inserted a provision in the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity allowing, under certain circumstances, the General Court to take up the role
of an interpretative jurisdiction.26 Article 31 of this treaty specifically indicated:
Article 225 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 225
(. . .)
3. The Court of First Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine
questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234, in specific areas
laid down by the Statute.
Where the Court of First Instance considers that the case requires a decision of
principle likely to affect the unity or consistency of Community law, it may refer
the case to the Court of Justice for a ruling.
Decisions given by the Court of First Instance on questions referred for a
preliminary ruling may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of
Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute,
where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Community law being
affected’ (emphasis added).
Therefore, since 2001, the General Court should have been sharing with the
Court of Justice not only appellate jurisdiction but also interpretative competence:
this is its design, at least as planned by the highest EU legislator.27 However, the
prerequisite condition for empowering the judges of the EU lower court with this
26
Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1, Article 225.
27
Treaty of Nice [2001] OJ C 80/1, Article 225, para 3.
18 M. Jaeger
new competence rests in the prior determination of these ‘specific areas’. As

explained above, such a task has been carried out in the context of the partial
transfer of the appellate jurisdiction where the same wording was used. In this
regard, specific areas were limited to disputes between the EU and its servants. In
stark contrast, the identification of specific areas where the EU first-tier tribunal
would be competent to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary
ruling has never been undertaken. Although no declaration was attached to the
Treaty of Nice calling for swift action to create this new power, as done by
Declaration 16 for appellate jurisdiction, it should, however, be noted that, first of
all, Declaration 14 on Article 225(2) and (3) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community provided for an evaluation mechanism for the execution of this new
role:
The Conference considers that when the Council adopts the provisions of the
Statute which are necessary to implement Article 225(2) and (3), it should put a
procedure in place to ensure that the practical operation of those provisions is
evaluated no later than three years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice
(emphasis added).
In addition, the allocation of an interpretative role to the General Court did not
mean that the Court of Justice would face the risk of losing its privilege to interpret
EU law at last instance. Indeed, even in these specifics fields, the Court of Justice
would not lose its entire competence since, on the one hand, when a case calls for a
landmark decision that could affect the unity or the coherence of EU law, the
General Court can forward it to the Court of Justice, while on the other hand, the
General Court’s judgments on preliminary rulings can be reviewed by the Court of
Justice. This latter safeguard is the same as the one set for the appellate jurisdic-
tion—namely, the possibility for the Court of Justice to review a decision adopted
by the General Court that could lead to a serious risk to the unity or the consistency
of EU law. However, such a procedure would obviously delay the ultimate response
awaited by the national judge who introduced the preliminary reference. Therefore,
a very practical requirement was laid down in Declaration 15 dedicated to this
competence, indicating as follows:
The Conference considers that, in exceptional cases in which the Court of Justice
decides to review a decision of the Court of First Instance on a question referred
for a preliminary ruling, it should act under an emergency procedure (emphasis
added).
The implementation of this second partial transfer of competence was a priori

seen as something that would soon be realised. However, the reason for the fact that
until now it has stayed only in the realm of possibility should not be sought in the
difficulty of identifying specific areas. Indeed, one of the fields that would appear to
be a natural candidate is intellectual property. The experience gained by the
General Court in this legal domain is tremendous because of the volume of cases
it has to deal with every year. The true obstacle to the execution of this transfer may
actually be found in the fact that in the last few years the General Court has
experienced a historic increase in the number of cases introduced, which has
directed attention more towards modifications of working methods and procedure
and ultimately to reflection on far-reaching structural reform.
Over 25 years, the nature of the first-tier tribunal has radically changed. How-
ever, all these modifications have a common feature in that they have all led to an
addition of competences: more types of topic to rule on, more types of litigant to
take care of and more types of request to deal with. This evolution is undoubtedly a
sign of recognition of the good work provided by the General Court to the EU
people. However, this has to be qualified by examining two sets of figures: first,
253 cases were introduced in 1995 and 912 last year; second, in the last 15 years
(1999–2014), the duration of proceedings increased from 12.7 months to 23.4
months on average.
It would be a shame if the success story of the General Court eventually turned
into a failure to answer the need for efficient justice in the EU. Birds of ill omen
have predicted such a future. However, to avoid this terrible prophecy, measures
have been taken. Some of them should be implemented in the coming months,
while others are still under discussion. Having looked back at the past of the
General Court, the time has come to look ahead at the shape the that General
Court might soon display (see Sect. 3).
3 The General Court: A Look Ahead
Two important events with a substantial impact on the operation of the General
Court have occurred. First, adopted on 2 May 1991, the General Court’s rules of
procedure have been amended several times, notably to take into account the
various enlargements of the EU and to absorb the new competences transferred
from the Court of Justice. However, a real need to comprehensively revise these
rules became apparent in the last few years, especially in order to increase judicial
efficiency. Therefore, after some intense work, the General Court welcomed its new
rules of procedure in July this year (see Sect. 3.1). Second, and in parallel with this
procedural reform, structural reform seemed to be necessary due to worrying
figures concerning judicial activity. However, both the content and method relating
to this reform have triggered much controversy and debate that explain the ongoing
state of this modification (see Sect. 3.2).
3.1 A Fresh Look at the Rules of Procedure (2015)
At the beginning of 2012, the General Court decided to launch a wide review of its
rules of procedure. After two and a half years, this process came to an end, the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Sunshine and shadow,
or, Paul Burton's surprise
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
Title: Sunshine and shadow, or, Paul Burton's surprise

A romance of the American Revolution
Author: Julia A. Moore
Release date: October 2, 2023 [eBook #71783]
Language: English
Original publication: Cadillac, MI: J. A. Moore, 1915
Credits: Gísli Valgeirsson and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUNSHINE

AND SHADOW, OR, PAUL BURTON'S SURPRISE ***
SUNSHINE AND SHADOW
OR PAUL BURTON’S SURPRISE
A Romance of the
American Revolution
BY JULIA A. MOORE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I. 5
CHAPTER II. 11
CHAPTER III. 17
CHAPTER IV. 23
CHAPTER V. 31
CHAPTER VI. 37
CHAPTER VII. 45
CHAPTER VIII. 51
CHAPTER I.
Many years ago, in one of the New England States near the banks of a small
lake, stood a beautiful farm house, surrounded by a fine orchard. John Hilton,
the owner of this romantic place, was an intelligent farmer and was kind to all
people who chanced to come to his house. His family consisted of himself,
wife and two children, a son and daughter. Warren, the eldest, was a fine lad of
eighteen, with blue eyes and light complexion, and inherited his father’s kind
disposition. Minnie was a brunette, a splendid girl of sixteen, with a heart as
pure as the wild flowers around her home. She had company. Her cousin,
Nettie Spaulding, had come from the city of New York to spend her birthday.
Nettie was a lovely girl of eighteen, with dark brown eyes and dark auburn hair
which hung in lovely curls around her shapely head. She had come to spend a
few days with her cousin in the country. Since her father’s death nothing
seemed to please this dreary, kind-hearted child of nature more than to visit
her uncle’s house by the lake, where she could roam at will in the woods and
gather wild flowers where nature had planted them so artistically. That
Monday morning there was a great bustle around the house. There was to be a
party on the Friday night following in honor of the young lady friend, and all
seemed to enjoy the pleasure it afforded, except the young lady. She was silent
and often in tears, and her cousins could not draw her out of this apathy. That
afternoon her cousins were going to town to do some shopping. Nettie
preferred staying at home and going down to the lake to gather wild flowers
for a bouquet.
“It is so pleasant to gather roses, lilies and shrubs alone by the lake;” thus she
said to her cousins as they rode away.
Warren waved an adieu as he said, “Dear cousin, do not go too near the brink
of the lake, as you may fall in and there would be no one to get you out.”
She waved back the adieu as she sadly said, “Be not afraid, cousin. I shall be
careful. How happy they are,” she said as she turned and went silently to the
house, thinking how kind her cousins were to her, a poor, lonely girl of the
metropolis. Thus she mused: “Mother told me my cousins would use me as if I
was as well off financially as they were. Oh, if papa had lived perhaps we
would not have been bankrupt. Oh, how times will change in a few short
months; as soon as papa died nearly all of his creditors wished to have their
pay. It was all right for them to have their dues. Poor mamma had to sell nearly
all the property, only saving a small sum out of the wreck. We can get along,
for ‘where there’s a will there’s a way.’ I am going to do something. One thing
certain—my parents gave me a good common education and debts cannot
take that away. I will try and turn it to good advantage when I can.” Thus she
mused as she went slowly up the path. The tears were slowly trickling down
her lovely features and falling on the little hands. She was deeply engaged in
thinking and did not observe her aunt who was coming down to meet her. She
was surprised when her aunt said, “Nettie dear, why those tears? Are you not
happy? Have your cousins been unkind to you?”
“No, auntie, I was only thinking of papa and what might have been.”
“Yes, Nettie, I know what you are referring to, but God has willed it otherwise
and you should be content. My dear, your papa did not know that he was so
soon to die and leave his only child nearly penniless. If he was to know it
would make him very unhappy, as he dearly loved you. It is well the dead do
not know of the living, for if they did how unhappy thousands would be to see
the troubles and sorrows of their friends on earth. This is a great mystery we
cannot solve; we can only do our duty in helping one another, then, perhaps,
we can meet them on that ‘evergreen shore.’”
While her aunt was speaking Nettie was silently weeping. Her aunt said,
“Cheer up, Nettie, you and your mother can have a home with us as long as we
have one, and we will share the last morsel of food with you; your uncle said
so a few days ago.”
“Thank you, auntie, we can get along yet a while; something may turn up for
us yet,” answered Nettie, kissing her aunt.
“Remember, my dear, you have one true Friend, One who is always near. He
will not forsake you in the hour of trial,” said her aunt.
“I remember mamma telling me that God will never forsake one of his
children if they will call on him for aid. It seems so strange, though, to be cast
down from wealth to poverty, and have nearly all our friends turn from us,”
said Nettie sorrowfully.
“They are not your friends; they are only make-believers. No true friends
would turn their backs to you because you had lost your wealth. They would
help you in the hour of need.”
“Thanks, auntie, for your compliment,” answered Nettie. “I will always be true
to myself and all mankind, then I will be able to reap the great reward that is in
store for the just.”
“Now, dear, it is time you should be going down to the lake to gather those
flowers, as your cousins will be back soon,” and as she spoke these words she
kissed her niece, turned, and ran up the steps as sprightly as a young girl.
All the afternoon she was meditating how happy she would make her only
brother’s lonely child. “My children shall not mar her happiness by one
thought or deed, as I will set the example and they will follow, as they are
dutiful children.”
Meantime Nettie wandered down to the lake, gathered a beautiful bouquet of
wild flowers, and then sat down on the brink of the lake to arrange them more
tastily. She was thinking how she would be eighteen next Friday, and how
anxious her cousins were for her to get acquainted with the young people of
the vicinity. She exclaimed aloud, “Oh, if I was as light hearted as they how
happy I would be. They seem to be very happy indeed, and why should they
not be, with everything so pleasant around them; by this little lake I could live
always, where nature is dressed in green in the summer season. Oh, mother, if
you knew how lonely your child is this afternoon and how sad it seems to me
to come here for pleasure, and leave you at home with only one companion. I
know it is very lonely for you, as I never have left you at home since papa died.
Oh, mama! why did you urge me to come and leave you alone. You were very
anxious for me to come and spend my birthday with my cousins. Oh, mother!
no happiness have I found, although my friends are very kind to me. I hope
some day I may be able to repay you for all the kindness you have shown to
me. Oh, dear! I am so melancholy.”
As she uttered those words tears were falling on the flowers in her lap, and in
moving some of the most beautiful of them fell into the water. “Oh, dear!
what shall I do! I can’t get any more of those lilies tonight; what will auntie say
when I return home?”
She had brought a stick and was trying to fish some of them up. So busily was
she engaged that she did not observe a tall manly form come out of a clump
of bushes near by until he said, “Dear lady, may I not get those flowers for
you? Please let me have that stick. Perhaps I can reach the greater part of
them.”
She gave the stick to him and stepped back and watched him as he drew the
flowers, one by one, out of the water. What a handsome young man he was, as
he stood, one foot on the bank and the other on a rock on the edge of the
lake, reaching far out into the water after the flowers. His hat lay on the bank;
his hair waved in the summer breeze—it was auburn and inclined to be curly.
His eyes were dark blue. He was a picture of manliness. This was Paul Burton,
the richest young man in the vicinity. He came down to the lake fishing, had
torn his net, and was mending it when the lady came near by, and not wishing
to frighten her had kept quiet, thinking perhaps she would soon go away. He
did not wish to be an eaves dropper, but the circumstances placed him there
and he did what any other young man would have done in like circumstances.
At last he secured all the flowers. He gently shook the water from them and
gave them to her, and bowing low said, “May nothing more serious happen to
the receiver of these flowers!”
He picked up his hat and turned to go when Nettie said, “Sir, to whom am I
indebted for this great act of kindness?”
He turned towards her, handing her a card which read thus: P. B., of Pine
Island. She put the card in her portfolio and kindly thanked him.
“You are entirely welcome, and I hope we may meet again.”
He quickly retreated to his work, leaving her standing alone. She watched his
form until the bushes hid him from view, then she went slowly homeward,
contemplating about the young fellow she had just met. She looked upon him
as a hero and wished to know more about him. Thus she mused: “I will find
out who he is Friday night. Perhaps he may come to the party, for he can’t live
far from here as he is alone. I will not say anything to cousin about whom I
saw, but will wait and see what will come to pass.” She went home in a lively
mood; she was happier now than she had been since her sojourn in the
country. Her cousins had returned heavy laden with dainties for the party. As
she came into the house so gaily they demanded to know why she had been
gone so long.
“You have not been getting flowers all this time; mother said you went away as
soon as we were gone,” said Minnie.
“Yes,” said Warren, “I was thinking of coming down to find you, thinking you
had wandered far out into the woods and got lost, or was drowned in the
lake.”
“No, cousin, I lost some of my flowers in the lake and had to get them.”
“How did you manage to get them,” asked Minnie laughing, “you had to wade
out in the water no doubt.”
“No, Minnie, they were fished out with a stick.”
“It must have been great amusement for you fishing for flowers; I wish I could
have seen you,” said Minnie, looking at her cousin pleasantly.
“You would have been surprised no doubt. I tell you, cousin, I have had a
splendid time since you have been gone, anyway,” answered Nettie.
She omitted telling them what a fine companion she met by the lake. She
seemed more cheerful and took more interest in getting ready for the party. All
her friends there wondered what had made her so lively and gay all at once, as
she spoke often of the party the remainder of the week. All the young people
were busily engaged in getting ready for this grand occasion, which was to be a
sunbeam in the life of poor, delicate, lovely little Nettie; she who was
discouraged and depressed; and for this reason her mother was anxious
regarding the health of her child, and for a change sent her to her uncle’s, who
were doing everything in their power to draw her back to be the same lively
girl she was before her father’s death.
I will leave them all busily engaged in getting ready for the party, and return to
Paul.
After getting the flowers he went back to his net, but he could not work. Time
hung heavily on his hands. At last he picked up his fishing tackle and went
homeward, musing on what a lovely little being he had found; such little hands.
“I saw one tiny little foot as she stepped upon a knoll to see me fish for the
flowers, and never can I forget those dark, dreamy eyes. They seem to look
into my very soul. I wonder if she is Warren Hilton’s cousin. All the girls
around here I am acquainted with. This little lady must be the city cousin
Hilton’s people are going to make a party for. Warren has given me an
invitation, and I am going, on purpose to see if my conjecture is right.”
Turning he went home, and as he came without any fish. His mother met him
at the door and said: “Why Paul where are your fish?”
“In the lake, I suppose,” he answered laughing heartily. “Do you not see I
haven’t any?”
“I didn’t know but what you left them somewhere about,” answered his
mother, rather sharply.
“Now mother do not be cross with your little boy. He has only been fishing
and tore the fish net and could not catch any,” said Paul, still laughing. “Oh,
mother, I found the nicest little human fish I ever saw, and I am going to catch
her if I can. What will my mother say to that?”
“My son,” answered the lady solemnly, “if she is good and true I will not say
anything, but if she is not, what a life you would live God only knows. My past
life you never knew, and may never, perhaps. If I had my life to live over again,
I should lead a different life to the one I have been living the past twenty
years.”
CHAPTER II.
It touched the honest heart of her son, and he said: “Mother, I know there’s a
great sorrow you wish to keep from me. I have found out that my father is
living, but why he is an exile from his home I know not, as you have always
avoided telling me of him.”
Paul looked wistfully at his mother, hoping she would respond favorably to his
last few words and tell him something about his father, whose picture hung
over the piano, in the parlor. She had taught him to love it and call it papa, yet
would always avoid telling anything about him when Paul in childish prattle
would say: “Mamma, where is my papa?”
The answer was always the same: “Paul, my darling son, your papa is gone,
gone;” then would break out weeping violently.
His childish questions were quickly hushed, as it always awed him into silence
to see his mother in trouble. Yet the same thought had grown up with him,
and in later years had troubled him very much. “Why does not mother tell me
more about my father—whether he is dead or alive;” these were his thoughts.
He was sitting under a tree one Sunday evening musing, when he exclaimed
aloud: “Is my father dead or alive? Why does mother not tell me and not keep
me in misery?”
An old negro servant was passing by and heard him. He went quietly to him,
and laying his hand on Paul’s shoulder said: “Young massa, fadda is alibe and is
a roving ober the earf, missa and massa had a quarrel and massa went away
when you was a little babe. He laid you in my arms and said, ‘Pompey, watch
ober dis boy as if he was your own, and God will bless you always; and my
prayer will always be for you and my poor little boy, who will neber know he
has a fadder.’”
Great tears rolled down the negro’s dusky cheeks and fell on the young man’s
shoulder as he said: “Paul, I has always watched you grow up to be a man, and
a good, kind man you is, too, and now I is ready to die.”
“No, no,” answered Paul, “do not say die, Pompey. You have tried to fill the
place of father to me, and I can remember many acts of kindness you have
shown to me in my childhood and I want you to live long with me,” and he
grasped the hand of his faithful old servant.
This was how Paul came to know his father was living; and when he was last
speaking to his mother and she did not say anything about his father he turned
to go and she saw he was deeply moved: she said, “Paul, who is this little girl
you spoke so highly of ?”
“I do not know, mother, but perhaps I shall before the week is out.” So saying,
he went slowly to the barn.
He was the owner of a fine farm of two hundred acres, surrounded by the
beautiful forest. Here he had lived ever since he could remember. It had always
seemed strange to him why his mother would not live in the city. She would
only go to town occasionally and always avoided company while there. She
seemed very low-spirited at times, and Paul many times wondered what made
her act so strange. She had given him a fine education and taught him to be a
good farmer, as she thought he would be compelled personally to go to
farming to save the farm, as she, a few years before the opening of our story,
had mortgaged it to save her father from ruin. She had always managed to pay
the interest on it in the strictest secrecy, always preserving the papers in a little
drawer in the closet in the garret. She thought no one knew where it was. Paul
knew nothing of what o’er-shadowed his birthplace. Happy was he at the age
of twenty-one when his mother deeded him the farm, saying, “My son, I freely
give this beautiful mansion and large farm to you, my only child. I know you
love your mother and will take care of her as long as she lives, and when she is
dead will place a plain marble stone at her grave to mark the resting place of
her who gave you birth.”
“Yes, mother,” answered her son. “Never will I forsake you or do aught to give
you pain;” and so far he had kept his word.
At this time or period in his career, time was changing with him; there was a
little being stepping between him and his mother, or in other words his love
was being divided between them. He dearly loved the mother who had nursed
him up to manhood and freely resolved ever to do only what was just and
right by her. He went to the barn to see his beautiful team of horses, a finer
span of blacks there was not for miles around. They were the envy of all the
boys in the country. Whenever he drove out to parties they always attracted
attention and comment, and their owner was highly esteemed for his true
manliness. All the girls said he was too fastidious, as none of them could please
him so well as to keep him from fishing. At last all the girls of his acquaintance
said he could never be suited. At last his fastidious taste was pleased. The
lovely, dreamy girl he met by the lake had won his honest heart. As he cared
for his horses he was deeply thinking of her whom he saw at the lake, and he
mused: “I will saddle Nellie and go to town this evening by the way of Hilton’s,
and perhaps I will see or hear of this city cousin, as I am very anxious to see
this little lady.”
Hastily throwing the saddle on his horse he brought him out of the barn, and
handed the reins to his faithful old servant, who was standing near by, and
went and told his mother of his intentions, omitting of course his going by the
way of Hilton’s. As he came out of the house and took the horse by the bridle,
Pompey said, “Where now, massa Paul, at dis time ob day.”
“To see my girl and tell her what a good old boy you are,” said Paul, laughing
as he went away.
“Bless his young heart; just like his fadder when a boy. How I lobe him. If he
only knowed what I does, how sad he would be. I can neber tell him, but will
watch all the same;” thus mused Pompey as he went out to see if everything
was all right, before retiring.
Paul rode quickly down the road and soon Hilton’s fine farm was in sight. As
he passed slowly by the house he heard someone singing. He stopped and
listened, and these words came floating out on the evening breeze:
But drops of grief can e’er repay

The debt of love I owe.
Here, Lord, I give myself away—
’Tis all that I can do.
As the sound of the sweet voice died away, he rode off saying, “It is her voice,
and it sounds as melancholy as it did down by the lake.” His whole soul
seemed to go out to her; his heart was beating violently, as the words just
uttered seemed to echo through his whole being. “Can such bliss ever be mine
to enjoy? If I can only win the little girl I saw today, I shall be the happiest man
on earth.” Thus the young man mused until the village was in sight. He rode
up to one of the principal stores, when Ralph Harding, an old chum, came up
to him saying, “Paul, have you had a bid to Hilton’s to a party Friday night?”
Not waiting for an answer he said: “I have, and I am going too. They say there
is going to be a New York girl there, and won’t we have jolly fun. She will call
us ‘moss backs’ and stick up her nose at us. They say she is so aristocratic that
a fellow can’t talk with her, even. Anyway, I am going up to see her.”
Paul stayed to hear no more, as he said: “You had better stay away from there
or keep your foolish clack to yourself, as no decent man would talk as you do
about a person he never saw.”
“Perhaps you have seen her and fallen in love with her, as you speak in such
high terms of her,” answered Ralph, winking knowingly.
“I have never had the honor of seeing her as I know of. What would Warren
Hilton say if he heard what you say about his cousin? He would take you for
less than a gentleman,” said Paul, springing lightly on his horse.
“I don’t know and I don’t care; better go and tell him,” said Ralph in a
sneering tone.
“Sir,” answered Paul, “it is a very foolish plan to strike a fool, or I would pitch
you in the street,” springing from his horse down on the sidewalk as he said:
“Ralph, you and I have never had any words before, and it is very strange we
should now, over a stranger; yet I cannot hear you speak ill of a woman you
know no harm of. I never heard you speak so hateful before of anyone. Why
should you now, Ralph?”
“I don’t know,” said Ralph meekly. “I will take it all back, and we will be
friends as of yore if you choose.”
“Thanks,” answered Paul; “kind words are better any time than cruel ones. My
mother always told me to shun a quarrel, and I would find it better in the end,
as no good ever sprung out of one. I must be going, as it is nearly nine o’clock
and I will not get home now until ten and mother will be very anxious about
me,” said Paul. “I would like to see you at the party, Ralph, as I am going too,
if mother is as well as usual. She has not been very well lately. She went to
town some time ago, and since then has been very poorly.”
“I am very sorry,” answered Ralph, and he felt deeply moved as he said: “Paul,
your mother is all the relative you have living, and it would be very bad indeed
to see her die. She has been a good, kind mother to you and you would miss
her very much.”
“Yes,” answered Paul, “a kinder mother there never was, and may she live long
to see what a dutiful son she has.” As he said this tears were in his eyes. “Good
night, Ralph!” Suiting the action to the word he sprang lightly on his horse and
rode away. He went homeward thinking of all Ralph had said about Warren’s
cousin and his mother, and he was deeply troubled. His mother he loved
deeply and feared for her health. He soon arrived and all were to bed except
his mother who met him at the door, saying: “My son, I am very glad to see
you come.”
“Why, mother, did you think the wolves would get me?” said her son laughing,
as he bent down and kissed her. “You see I am here and looking well, so you
need not worry any more, but go right to bed, as you are very pale. Mother,
have you any objections to my going to John Hilton’s to a party Friday night? I
will not stay long.”
“No, my son, I should be pleased to have you go, as it is very lonesome for
you to stay here all the time with only me as company,” said his mother, the
tears springing to her eyes.
“No, no, mother, it is not lonesome here. It would be, though, if I had no
mother to kiss me good night.”
He went to his mother and kissed her again, saying: “Drive those tears away,
dear mother, and let me see you smile again. You have been thinking too
deeply about me since I went away this evening.”
If he only knew what troubled her day and night he would have been troubled
too, but as it were he only thought it was because he went away and left her
alone, which he seldom did in the evening, lately. He went to bed thinking of
all that had transpired since morning—the little lady he met by the lake—
Ralph’s cruel and kind words—and seeing his mother in tears, which he
seldom ever did.
“’Tis strange, very strange,” mused Paul as he fell asleep.
CHAPTER III.
The time for the party came in due season, and at John Hilton’s everything
seemed to be hustle, bustle. The tea things were to be cleared away, the lamps
lighted, and many other things to be seen to before the company arrived.
Nettie was tripping here and there, making bouquets, for the dining room
tables, seemingly very happy. Her cousins, Warren and Minnie, were very
happy to see their little city cousin, as they loved to call her, so happy—she
always wore a happy smile now.
It was getting late when Minnie said, “Come, Nettie, we must dress soon or
some will come and see us with our working clothes on.”
“Why, cousin, we should not care, as all who will be here tonight know that we
have to work for our living, and we should not try to deceive them,” answered
Nettie, setting the last bouquet in the vase on the mantle over the old-
fashioned fireplace.
“Come now, Minnie, I am ready to go up to the chamber.”
Suiting the action to the word she went tripping away, leaving Minnie to follow
her.
Soon the house was filled with guests, as Hilton’s family were highly respected
throughout the vicinity. Nearly all the guests had arrived when the girls came
down to the sitting room.
Nettie was dressed in book muslin, looped up with knots of cardinal ribbon
and a knot in her hair and at her lily-white throat. She was a picture of
loveliness. Minnie was dressed the same.
“We will be twin sisters this evening,” said Minnie.
“Two better-looking girls there are not in the country,” said Warren, as he
proudly gave an arm to each.
“Don’t flatter us, cousin, or you will make us vain,” said Nettie, looking
smilingly up at him.
“Yes, brother, these dresses are very becoming to us—do you not think so?”
“Yes, sister, white becomes both of you very much.”
They were going slowly down the hall. Nettie was looking shyly around the
room, and Warren noticing her movements said, “Dear cousin, who are you
looking for?”
“No one in particular, cousin Warren. What made you think so?”
“Oh, you seemed so absent-minded; I do not think you have heard a word we
were saying.”
As he stopped speaking the door opposite them opened, a young man entered,
looked around the room, and took off his hat as he said, “Good evening, all.”
His eyes rested on the lovely young girl on Warren’s arm as they came slowly
toward him.
They came to him, and Warren said, “My cousin, Miss Spaulding, Mr. Burton.”
As their eyes met Warren knew they had met before, as Nettie’s face turned
crimson and Paul did not look up. He was sure the guests were all looking at
him. The cousins turned and went down the hall. A young man came and
claimed Minnie for a dance, and Nettie and Warren were alone. As soon as
they were far enough away Warren said, “Little cousin, you and Mr. Burton
have met before; when and where?”
As Nettie did not say anything, he said, “Won’t you tell me, Nettie? Do not be
afraid to tell me, as I am your friend and cousin—one that will be a true friend
to you under all circumstances.”
“Yes,” answered Nettie, “we met last Monday down by the lake; it was he who
rescued the flowers for me.”
“Well,” answered Warren, “he is one of the noblest young men there is about
here, and wealthy besides, and if you gain the esteem of him you will gain
more than any girls about here have done. They have all tried to capture him,
but all have failed in the attempt. They say ‘He never can be suited.’ I wish you
success, little cousin mine.”
As he said this he led her to a seat and went to find Minnie. He went back to
where Paul sat and said, “Mr. Burton, I am pleased to see you here this

Textbook Eu Competition and State Aid Rules Public and Private Enforcement 1St Edition Vesna Tomljenovic Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Eu Competition and State Aid Rules Public and Private Enforcement 1St Edition Vesna Tomljenovic Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EU Competition and State Aid Rules:

Public and Private Enforcement 1st

Public Procurement and the EU Competition Rules Second

Public and Private Enforcement of Competition Law in

Harmonisation of EU Competition Law Enforcement Jurgita

Higher Education Institutions in the EU: Between

The enforcement of EU law and values : ensuring member

Public Sector Accounting, Auditing and Control in South

EU Law of Competition and Trade in the Pharmaceutical

State aid law of the European Union 1st Edition Hofmann

EU Competition and State

Vlatka Butorac Malnar Ivana Kunda

ISSN 2366-0953 ISSN 2366-0961 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017959166

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

Luxembourg, Luxembourg Vesna Tomljenović

Part I The Role of Courts in Public Enforcement of EU

Part II Challenges of Public Enforcement of EU Competition Rules

Part III Selected Issues of Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law

Part IV Contemporary Topics of State Aid Law Enforcement

Dubravka Akšamović Faculty of Law, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia

Siniša Petrović Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

25 Years of evolution, 25 years of revolution, 25 years of production – no one

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 3

2 The General Court: A Look Back

2.1 From ‘Specialised’ to ‘General’: The Recognition

2.1.1 A Specialised Court: Subject Matter and Parties

Specialised in Terms of Subject Matter In 1986, the Single European Act2

The EEC Treaty shall be supplemented by the following provisions:

The EEC Treaty shall be supplemented by the following provisions:

The EEC Treaty shall be supplemented by the following provisions:

instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law

Article 3 of Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, indicated as

2.1.2 General Court: Subject Matter and Parties

Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom is hereby amended as follows:

1. the following shall be substituted for Article 3(1):

2. paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3 are hereby repealed; (. . .) [indications added].

General in Terms of Parties Almost a decade would be necessary to move to the

The EEC Treaty Shall be Supplemented by the Following Provisions:

Article 225 [ex-article 168a] shall be replaced by the following:

(a) an act of or failure to act by the European Parliament or the Council, or by

In other words, the EU legislator decided to empower judges of the Court of

2.2 From First Instance Court to General Court

2.2.1 First Instance Court: General and Specific

substances pursuant to the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation

2.2.2 General Court: Appellate and Interpretative

Article 225 shall be replaced by the following:

jurisdiction to deliver judgments at first instance on disputes between the Com-

The EEC Treaty shall be supplemented by the following provisions:

Article 225 shall be replaced by the following:

new competence rests in the prior determination of these ‘specific areas’. As

The implementation of this second partial transfer of competence was a priori

3 The General Court: A Look Ahead

3.1 A Fresh Look at the Rules of Procedure (2015)

Title: Sunshine and shadow, or, Paul Burton's surprise

Author: Julia A. Moore

Release date: October 2, 2023 [eBook #71783]

Original publication: Cadillac, MI: J. A. Moore, 1915

Credits: Gísli Valgeirsson and the Online Distributed

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SUNSHINE

But drops of grief can e’er repay