ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 —

Director-General of OLAF v Commission

(Case T‑251/16 R)

‛Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Decision to waive the immunity from legal proceedings of the Director-General of OLAF — Measure liable to call into question the independence of the Director-General — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 26, 34, 35)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1) and (2) (see paras 30-32)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Commission decision waiving the immunity of the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Performance of that director’s tasks and proper functioning of OLAF not undermined — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 43-51)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings — None (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 57)

5. Privileges and immunities of the European Union — Immunity — Waiver of immunity — Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Lawfulness — Conditions (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Art. 17) (see para. 58)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking to obtain suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2016) 1449 final of 2 March 2016 concerning an application for waiver of immunity.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 6 June 2016 made in Case T‑251/16 R is set aside.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2017 —

Megasol Energie v Commission

(Case T‑152/16)

(Action for annulment — Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan — Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty and definitive countervailing duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Admissibility criteria—Interest in bringing proceedings—Action needing to be capable of procuring a benefit for the applicant—Need for an actual and current interest—Assessment of the interest at the time the action brought—Burden of proof on the applicant

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

(see paras 19-22)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 56), and of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/185 of 11 February 2016 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China to imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not (OJ 2016 L 37, p. 76), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 14-16)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 7 February 2017 —

Stips v Commission

(Case T‑593/16)

(Action for damages — Civil service — Temporary staff — No request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Manifest inadmissibility)

Actions brought by officials—Compensation action brought without pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations—Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 32, 33)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 September 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

(Case T‑207/16)

(Action for annulment — Measures never having been adopted — Request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate — Request that the application be interpreted as referring to a measure other than the contested measures — Dismissal — Manifest inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Concept—Measures never adopted—Not included / precluded—Request that the application be interpreted as seeking annulment of a measure other than those challenged—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.)

(see paras 34, 35, 37, 38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of an alleged exclusion decision taken against the applicant and of an alleged decision to register the applicant and to activate the exclusion warning against the applicant in the Early Warning System (EWS) or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System (EDES).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs in the main proceedings and in the application for interim measures, and to pay two thirds of the costs of Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis in those proceedings.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 —

De Masi v Commission

(Case T‑341/16)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Request for access on the basis of the inter-institutional cooperation by virtue of Article 230 TFEU — Documents concerning the work of the ‘Code of conduct (Business Taxation)’ group instituted by the Council — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Concept—Measures producing binding legal effects—Letter from the Commission in reply to a request for access by the president of a committee of the Parliament seeking communication of documents concerning the work of a group established by the Council—Issuing of the letter in the context of inter-institutional dialogue developed between the Parliament and the Commission on the subject of access to documents—Exclusion—Administrative character of the correspondence

(Art. 13(2) TEU; Arts 230, second para., TFEU and 263 TFEU)

(see paras 26-28, 31, 38, 47, 50, 51)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 8 June 2016, responding to the request of the President of the European Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect (TAXE2) for full access to the documents of the ‘Code of conduct (Business Taxation)’ group.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2017 —

Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v Commission

(Case T‑207/16 R)

(Interim measures — Public contracts — Disclaimer notice — Screening opinion — Application for a stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company—Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 18, 19)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the general exclusion decision concerning the applicant in the Early Warning System or in the Early Detection and Exclusion System.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2018 — QG v Commission

(Case T‑845/16)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility))

1. Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings—Application devoid of purpose—No need to adjudicate (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Meaning—Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant—Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 25)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

Operative part

1. The application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona.

4. QG shall pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2017 — Salehi v Commission

(Case T‑773/16)

(Action for failure to act — Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Failure by the Commission to adopt implementing acts temporarily suspending the exemption from visa requirements for certain categories of third country nationals — Position of the Commission — Manifestly inadmissible)

1. Actions for failure to act—Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought—Concept—Refusal to act in accordance with the invitation to act—Included (Art. 265, second para. TFEU) (see paras 14-17)

2. Actions for failure to act—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Regulation 539/2001—Abstention by the Commission to adopt implementing acts temporarily suspending the exemption from visa requirements for certain categories of third country nationals—Applicant not being directly concerned by such an act—Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU; Council Regulation No 539/2001, Art. 1(4)) (see paras 25-30)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt an implementing act within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) and failed to notify the applicant thereof.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 January 2019 –

Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T‑149/16)

(Action for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Lis pendens — Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action

(see paras 28, 32, 33)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2018 –

Labiri v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T‑904/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Amicable settlement — Implementation of the agreement — [confidential] — Misuse of powers — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions brought by officials—Judgment annulling a measure—Amicable settlement between an agent and his institution—Effects—Obligation to implement—Scope—Account taken of the grounds of the amicable settlement (Art. 266 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 91(1)) (see paras 32, 33)

2. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (see paras 44, 45)

Re:

Application, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision dated 11 May 2016 of the Secretary-General of the Committee of the Regions, in agreement with the EESC [confidential], in implementation of the amicable settlement in Case F‑33/15.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2017 —

Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe v Parliament

(Case T‑118/17 R)

(Interim proceedings — Institutional law — European Parliament — Decision awarding a grant to a political foundation — Suspension of prefinancing — Obligation to provide a bank guarantee — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 17, 19, 20)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence—Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 31, 44, 47, 49)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee in the context of the financing of a political foundation—Conditions for granting—Exceptional circumstances—Impossible to obtain a bank guarantee—Extent of the burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 33-38)

4. Application for interim measures—Formal requirements—Submission of applications—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings—General reference to other documents—Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 43, 45)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures, seeking, first, the suspension of operation of Parliament Decision FINS-2017-28 of 15 December 2016 concerning the funding allocated to the applicant in so far as it suspends payment of prefinancing, second, exemption from the requirement to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for prefinancing and, third, an order that the Parliament pay to the applicant the prefinancing amount.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 20 March 2018 –

Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T‑134/17 R)

(Interim proceedings — Access to documents — Documents relating to the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of a Commission decision on State aid implemented by Spain in favour of three professional football clubs — Rights of the defence — Refusal of access — Application for provisional measures — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 12, 14, 15)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Purely hypothetical damage based on the happening of future and uncertain events—Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 18, 19, 33, 40)

3. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for—Pleas in law not set out in the application—General reference to other documents—Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 21, 22)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant—Damage relating to the proceedings in another case before the EU courts—Included—Conditions (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 34, 35)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission grant access to the documents in the file relating to State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD, Hércules Club de Fútbol and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD, in so far as they concern the applicant and fundamental to the proper defence of its interests.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.
Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute—Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based—Application not sufficiently clear and precise—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d))

(see paras 12, 13)
Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Final report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning an external investigation and recommendation of the Director General of OLAF as to the action to be taken by the national authorities — Not included — Forwarding to those authorities of information gathered in the context of that investigation — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Recital 31 and Art. 11)

(see paras 21-25)
Thus, regarding an application seeking suspension of the operation of a decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) rejecting a claim for confidential treatment made in the context of the application for the renewal of the approval of an active substance, the condition relating to the establishment of a prima facie case is not satisfied, since the information concerned was prepared by EFSA in the context of the assessment of that application and it does not seem, a priori, capable of being defined as information for which confidential treatment may be claimed pursuant to Article 63(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Moreover, it is apparent, at first sight, that Article 63 of that regulation mentions a possible assessment by EFSA not to show that it can be granted confidential treatment, but to exclude the application of confidential treatment to information submitted by interested parties.

In interim proceedings, it is insufficient, for the purposes of being granted interim measures, to claim that the information which is to be disclosed is confidential where such a claim does not satisfy the condition relating to the establishment of a prima facie case.

Where an undertaking seeks interim measures in order to prevent the publication of information allegedly covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, the extent to which disclosure of such information will cause serious and irreparable harm depends on a combination of factors, such as, inter alia, how significant the information is in commercial and professional terms for the undertaking providing the information and its usefulness for other market participants which are liable to examine and use it subsequently.

However, the solutions adopted by the judge hearing the application for interim measures in view, inter alia, of the non-quantifiable and therefore irreparable nature of the financial loss caused by a publication of allegedly confidential information does not apply where the applicant fails to identify, in the application for interim measures, information which, if the documents at issue were published in their entirety, could be especially useful for its current or future competitors, in that it could be used for commercial and competitive purposes, and that, in particular, the applicant does not refer to any specific element which constitutes, for the applicant, an intangible asset that may be used for competitive purposes, whose value could be seriously reduced, or even eliminated, if it did not remain secret. Such is the case here where the applicant merely argues that full publication of the documents in question would be liable to harm its reputation, its market share and its turnover, in so far as those documents concern a substance characterised, in its view, as presenting a health risk, with regards to its customers, users of that substance, the general public and regulatory authorities.

(see paras 38-40)