ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of the interests – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-33, 36-38)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 – Bathroom fittings and fixtures).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Situation capable of seriously compromising the exercise by a regional body of its public service tasks – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-22, 25)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of remedy by the granting of compensation in the main action – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION to suspend the operation, first, of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia, within Objective 1 (2000‑2006) and, second, of the payment order contained in the debit note of 26 February 2010 issued following that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R are joined for the purposes of this order.

2. The applications for interim measures are dismissed.

3. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Third party capacity in relation to the parties

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.)

Summary

It is apparent from the first, third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 and the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice as well as the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in particular from the use of the term ‘represented’ in the third paragraph of the said Article 19, that, in order to bring an action before the General Court, ‘a party’, within the meaning of that provision, is not permitted to act itself but must use the services of a third person authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That requirement to use a third person is based on a view of the lawyer’s role as being required to provide, in full independence and in the overriding interests of justice, such legal assistance as the client needs.

In those circumstances, any obligation of independence flowing from the professional rules is not enough in itself to demonstrate that the persons connected to the applicant by an employment relationship were entitled to represent the applicant before the Court. Indeed, the concept of the independence of lawyers is defined not only positively, that is by reference to professional ethical obligations, but also negatively, that is to say, by the absence of an employment relationship. It follows that the existence of a subordinate relationship within an authority, the sole function of which is to assist the applicant, implies a degree of independence less than that of a legal adviser or a lawyer practicing in a firm that is external to their client.

(see paras 12, 14-18, 21, 25)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – 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 – Lack of clarity – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 17-20, 24-25)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission decision merely communicating information concerning the state of EU law in the area of nuclear safety – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)

4. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Commission refusal to request the agreement of a Member State in order to send certain documents to the applicant – No obligation to act – Appropriate remedy – Action for annulment – Action for failure to act inadmissible (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2011, Arts 7 and 8) (see paras 41-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

Firstly, in essence, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 March 2010 not to take any further action in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia and, secondly, an action in respect of failure to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to the documents requested relevant to that project, in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Land Wien is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Natural or legal persons

—

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

—

Whether directly concerned

—

Criteria

—

Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD

—

Action by a regional body benefiting from that financing and acting as management authority for the funds received

—

Not directly concerned

—

Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 42-57, 65

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market

–

Access to the aid scheme opened on the basis of objective criteria and without limitation as to the number of potential beneficiaries

–

Action of a company eligible for that scheme

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-24, 26-28, 32-33, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) – Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and The European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (Cecodhas).

3. Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. Vesteda Groep, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and Cecodhas, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Procedure — Independent of the competition procedure (Art. 258 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see para. 43)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — E — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 50-53)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 July 2012 — IVBN v Commission

(Case T-201/10)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations — Existing aid — Special project aid to housing corporations — Decision accepting the Member State’s commitments — Decision declaring new aid compatible — No individual concern — Failure to initiate the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Action inadmissible in part and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Action by an association representing the collective interests of the undertakings in the sector concerned — Admissibility — Conditions (Arts 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 26, 27, 29, 31-35)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Competitor of the undertaking receiving the aid — Right to bring an action — Conditions — Action by an association acting as representative of the collective interest of its members without demonstrating that their competitive position substantially affected — Inadmissibility (Arts 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 36, 37, 41)

3. State aid — Existing aid — Commission’s examination of the compatibility of the aid with the common market — Undertakings given by the paying Member State — Commission unable to open the formal investigation procedure — No obligation on the Commission to put the persons concerned on notice to submit their observations (Art. 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 19(1)) (see paras 45-47, 50)

4. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Serious difficulties — Meaning — Objective nature (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

5. State aid — Examination by the Commission — Preliminary review and main review — Difficulties of assessment — Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure — Serious difficulties — Duration of the first examination capable of constituting an indicator of the existence of serious difficulties (Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU) (see para. 54)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Case T-119/10

Kingdom of the Netherlands

v

European Commission

(Actions for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Programme Interreg II/C ‘Rhine-Meuse flood protection’ — Non-compliance with the period prescribed for the adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

Summary – Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber), 13 September 2017

Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — To be considered of the Court's own motion — Condition — Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard (Art. 263 TFEU) Economic, social and territorial cohesion — Structural assistance — European Union funding — Regulation No 1083/2006 — Financial corrections — Period prescribed for the adoption of the Commission’s decision — Applicability to the programmes implemented before 2007 (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2014 —

Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑427/10 and T‑576/10 and Case T‑439/12)

‛Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Action brought against a Commission decision amending the initial decision — Decision irrelevant to the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17-22)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part

1. In Case T‑427/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. In Case T‑576/10, the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 – SNF v ECHA

(Case T-1/10 R)

Proceedings for interim measures – REACH – Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern – Application for suspension of operation of the measure and for interim relief – 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-24)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-48, 66-67)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern stated to have been adopted by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on 7 December 2009 pursuant to Article 59 of 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 (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 March 2011 – Milux v OHIM (REFLUXCONTROL and Others)

(Cases T‑139/10, T‑280/10 to T‑285/10 and T‑349/10 to T‑352/10)

Community trade mark – Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant – Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para., Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 20-21, 25-26)

Re:

ACTIONS against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2010 (Case R 1134/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign REFLUXCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑139/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1432/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign ANEURYSMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑280/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1433/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign APPETITECONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑281/10); of 8 June 2010 (Case R 1434/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign STOMACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑282/10); of 17 June 2010 (Case R 1435/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign BMICONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑283/10); of 3 June 2010 (Case R 1438/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign IMPLANTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑284/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1444/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign CHEMOCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑285/10); of 29 June 2010 (Case R 1436/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign OVUMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑349/10); of 2 July 2010 (Case R 1437/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign HEARTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑350/10); of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1439/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign VESICACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑351/10); and of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1443/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign RECTALCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑352/10).

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Milux Holding SA Community trade marks concerned: Word marks REFLUXCONTROL, ANEURYSMCONTROL, APPETITECONTROL, STOMACONTROL, BMICONTROL, IMPLANTCONTROL, CHEMOCONTROL, OVUMCONTROL, HEARTCONTROL, VESICACONTROL and RECTALCONTROL for products and services in Classes 9, 10 and 44 Decision of the examiner: Applications for a Community trade mark dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeals dismissed





Operative part

1. Cases T‑139/10, T‑280/10 to T‑285/10 and T‑349/10 to T‑352/10 are joined for the purposes of the present order.

2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2011 – Vivendi v Commission

(Case T-567/10)

Actions for annulment – Refusal by the Commission to act against a Member State for alleged infringement of Article 106 TFEU – No measure open to challenge – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Not included – Inadmissibility (Arts 106(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 16-18, 25-26)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of the principle of consistency of EU policies – Infringement of the right to an effective remedy – None – Inadmissibility (Arts 7 TFEU and 106(3) TFEU) (see para. 19)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of Directive 2002/77 – None – Inadmissibility (Art. 106(3) TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 22-24)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 1 October 2010 informing the applicant of its refusal to examine the complaint lodged by the applicant on 2 March 2009 seeking the opening of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC in respect of infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21) and, consequently, of Article 86(1) EC, by granting a regulatory advantage to France Télécom.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene by the French Republic and France Télécom.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 – ara v OHIM – Allrounder (A)

(Case T-397/10)

Community trade mark – Opposition procedure – Failure to submit the statement of grounds of appeal to the Board of Appeal within the prescribed time-limit – Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting an application for the full re‑establishment of the applicant’s rights – Action manifestly lacking a legal basis

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Restitutio in integrum – Conditions – Vigilance required by the circumstances – Exceptional, and thus unforeseeable, events – Human error by a qualified co-worker – Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 27, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2010 (Case R 1543/2009-1) concerning the applicant’s application for full re‑establishment of its rights.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking a legal basis.