Fundamentally broken cases

[s-brekke]

• [x] ECLI:EU:T:2005:48
• [x] ECLI:EU:C:2001:710 – This case seems to have several problems. Some of these may be the result of it being an order. Firstly, there are only three interveners (Spain, TNC and Alloy), but the case lists 5. It seems to list some of the -other parties- as interveners. Moreover, both Spain and eg. TNC are listed as supporting the applicant, though they support different parties.
• [x] ECLI:EU:C:2000:529 This case contains multiple errors, proboabyl due to the extensive list of oral observations. For example, France only makes an oral observation but is listed as making an ordinary, whereas there are some erroneus oral ones, e.g. -i>rédacteur in-.
• [x] ECLI:EU:C:1991:11 Random words have been scraped as parties

[s-brekke]

In ECLI:EU:C:2001:710, Spain supports the applicant in first instance, the other two support the appellant - I fail to distinguish between the two.

[s-brekke]

In ECLI:EU:C:2000:529, France is listed along with the Commission, Austria, Netherlands, and the UK as having submitted observations. Problems seem to frequently follow from Eurlex metadata - I will try to rely only on the text corpus (XML) when available.

[s-brekke]

Random words are gone from ECLI:EU:C:1991:11, but it is still missing submissions by Dierk Booß and Klaus-Dieter Borchardt (PDF-specific issue).

[s-brekke]

The problems listed in this report are fixed; Further issues with ECLI:EU:C:2001:710 traced in #18 and #19.