ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 September 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Reimbursement of recoverable expenses — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2011 in Case F‑67/10 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal likely to procure an advantage for the party bringing it

For a person to have an interest in bringing appeal proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for that party.

(see para. 13)

See

C-19/93 P Rendo and Others v Commission [1995] ECR I-3319, para. 13; C-174/99 P Parliament v Richard [2000] ECR I-6189, para. 33; 19 January 2006, C‑82/04 P Audi v OHIM, not published in the ECR, para. 20

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 September 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Reimbursement of recoverable expenses — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2011 in Case F‑67/10 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Summary

Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal likely to procure an advantage for the party bringing it

For a person to have an interest in bringing appeal proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for that party.

(see para. 13)

See

C-19/93 P Rendo and Others v Commission [1995] ECR I-3319, para. 13; C-174/99 P Parliament v Richard [2000] ECR I-6189, para. 33; 19 January 2006, C‑82/04 P Audi v OHIM, not published in the ECR, para. 20
Keywords



Keywords

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. 104(2)) (see paras 13‑16)

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 para. 19)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 20)

4. 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 — Irreparable alteration in market share — Whether included — Conditions (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para 28, 29)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

6 September 2011





Case T-282/11





Ciprian-Calin Alionescu

v

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

(Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision by EPSO to extend by six hours the period for the submission of applications — Referral to the Civil Service Tribunal)

Application: for annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to extend by six hours the period for the submission of applications in open competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11 and the adoption of measures consequent on that annulment.

Held: Case T-282/11 is referred to the Civil Service Tribunal. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Action against a decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) taken in the context of an open competition for the recruitment of officials — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal

(Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 29 to 31 and Annex III)

An action, brought by a candidate in an open competition aimed at recruiting European Union officials, seeking to dispute the lawfulness of a decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) taken in the context of that open competition falls within the scope of Article 270 TFEU and, therefore, falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal. The recruitment of officials of the European Union is governed, in particular, by Articles 29 to 31 of the Staff Regulations and by Annex III thereto. Consequently, a candidate in an open competition is a person covered by the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 7-10)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — TME v Commission

(Case T-329/11)

‛Public service contracts — Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds — Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the applicant — Refusal of the Commission to open a financial adjustment procedure with respect to Romania — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see para. 29)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations — Act not amounting to unlawfulness — Claims for compensation — Inadmissibility (Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 31, 32)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 April 2011 concerning the complaint of TME SpA in respect of infringements of European Union law by Romania in the context of the project ‘Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03’, inherent in the restructuring of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant [D (2011)REGIO.B3/MAD] and, second, a claim for damages.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 – Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-27/11 R)

Interim proceedings – Application for interim measures – Manifest inadmissibility

Application for interim measures – Community law – Prima facie admissibility of the main action – Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures – No interest in bringing an action in the main proceedings – Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 10, 12)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 concerning State aid No MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows therefrom that there must be no new transactions involving Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG after 15 February 2011.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T‑430/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility’

1. Procedure — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114(1) and (3)) (see para. 20)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 26, 27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action of an undertaking not being an actual beneficiary of that scheme at the time the decision was adopted — Inadmissibility — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 29-36, 40-46)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Distinction between being individually affected and having an interest in bringing an action (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 43)

5. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Not included (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 50-52, 54)

6. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment of a decision on State Aid declared inadmissible by the General Court — Possibility of requesting the national court to make a reference for a preliminary ruling (Arts 263 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see para. 53)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 – Qualitest FZE v Council

(Case T-421/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of urgency

1. 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 – 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. 104(2)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Applications 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 which could jeopardise 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; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-23, 25-26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2011 – Consortium v Commission

(Case T-513/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Main action clearly inadmissible – No need to adjudicate

Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Main action dismissed in the meantime – Application which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 2-4)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 155 final, of 12 January 2011, ordering recovery of the amount of EUR 141 350 granted to the applicant by way of financing for a project called ‘Train in the trainer’.

Operative part:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 – GS v Parliament and Council

(Case T-149/11)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 – Right of the Member States to refuse the reimbursement of euro coins unfit for circulation – No direct concern – Inadmissible

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Provision of a regulation giving Member States the right to refuse reimbursement of certain euro coins unfit for circulation – Applicant not directly concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1210/2010) (see paras 18-19, 24-25, 28)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (on an interim application) of 13 June 2012 —

Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council



(Case T-656/11 R II)

Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Application for an amended decision during the proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 7, 8)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 March 2012 — Universal v Commission

(Case T‑42/11)

Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Request that the parent company pay the fine — Bank guarantee lodged in the name of the subsidiary — Date on which the fine becomes due for payment — Action for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letters calling upon the addressee to pay a fine, plus default interest, imposed for breach of the competition rules — Measures preparatory to pure implementation measures — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-21, 27-28, 32)

2. Competition — Fines — Discretion of the Commission — Scope — Power to fix the methods of payment of the fines — Imposition of interest for delay (Art. 299 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 29‑30)

3. Union law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment against measures not producing binding legal effects inadmissible — Possibility of parties challenging such measures by an action in non-contractual liability of the Union (Arts 268 TFEU, 299, fourth para., TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 43-45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letters of 12 and 30 November 2010 in which the Commission requested the applicant to pay the amount of the fine that had been imposed on it, jointly and severally with its subsidiary Deltafina SpA, by Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B2 — Raw Tobacco — Italy).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — Not included (Arts 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 30, 31, 53)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Decision not in principle adversely affecting the applicant — Obligation on the General Court to examine the possible binding legal effects of the Commission’s assessment — Plea concerning certain qualifications in the grounds of the decision — No legally binding position taken in the operative part in that regard — Inadmissibility (Arts 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 32, 33, 36-38)

3. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action against a Commission decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Action brought by the authorities responsible for awarding subsidies and the beneficiary undertakings — Commission decision not adversely affecting the applicants — No binding legal effects capable of affecting the interests of those applicants — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Arts 107(1) and (3) TFEU, 108(3) TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 17 to 19 and 21) (see paras 41-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission decision C(2011) 4945 final of 13 July 2011 concerning the State aid granted by the Netherlands in the form of subsidies applicable to the acquisition of land for environmental protection (N 308/2010 — Netherlands).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Landgoed Welna and Heerlijkheid Mariënwaerdt.

3. Provincie Groningen, Provincie Friesland, Provincie Drenthe, Provincie Overijssel, Provincie Gelderland, Provincie Flevoland, Provincie Utrecht, Provincie Noord-Holland, Provincie Zuid-Holland, Provincie Zeeland, Provincie Noord-Brabant, Provincie Limburg, Stichting Het Groninger Landschap, It Fryske Gea, Stichting Het Drentse Landschap, Stichting Landschap Overijssel, Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap, Stichting Flevo-landschap, Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap, Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland, Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap, Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap, Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap, Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are ordered to bear their own costs.

5. Landgoed Den Alerdinck II, Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters, Landgoed Welna and Heerlijkheid Mariënwaerdt, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest to be assessed at the time at which an action is brought — Action brought against a measure producing binding legal effects on the applicant — Repeal of the contested measure in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that no need to adjudicate — Not permissible — Maintenance of the applicant’s interest in obtaining recognition of the unlawfulness of the contested measure (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see paras 68, 69)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the European Central Bank holding Greek debt instruments not meeting the minimum requirements of the Eurosystem in regard to the credit quality threshold eligible in exchange for a buy-back scheme in favour of national central banks — Action brought by private creditors holding Greek debt instruments — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Decision of the European Central Bank 2012/153, Art. 1(1)) (see paras 72, 81, 82, 88, 89)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision 2012/153/EU of the European Central Bank of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (ECB/2012/3) (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Alessandro Accorinti and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex are ordered to pay the costs.