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

12 June 2012

Guido Strack

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Order for referral of action — Decision not capable of appeal — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 7 December 2011 in Case F‑44/05 RENV Strack v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Guido Strack is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present case.

Summary

Appeals — Subject-matter — Setting aside an order of the Civil Service Tribunal declining jurisdiction in favour of the Court of Justice or of the General Court — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9, first and second paras)

The conditions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, concerning decisions which may be appealed against, are not satisfied where the Civil Service Tribunal does not find that the European Union courts do not have jurisdiction, but refers the action to the General Court in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice. Such a referral is not such as to compromise the judicial protection of the parties before the Union courts, which will, in any event, rule on all the issues raised by the action.

It is for the court to which the action has been referred to assess its own jurisdiction and, if appropriate, to refer the action back, in accordance with the special procedure for that purpose, to the court of first instance, which cannot then decline jurisdiction. That special mechanism allows the settlement of questions concerning the division of powers between the courts making up the institution of the Court of Justice of the European Union. From that point of view, and although the question of the courts’ jurisdiction may, where appropriate, also be the subject of argument between the parties before the General Court, in proceedings following a referral, the use of the appeals procedure in such a case is contrary to the rules set out in Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and to the sound administration of justice. It would result in overlapping actions, since, in the same case, both the case referred and the appeal against the referral would be pending before the General Court.

(see paras 9-13)

See:

T‑413/06 P Gualtieri v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I‑B‑1‑35 and II‑B‑1‑253, paras 24, 25 and 27; 8 July 2010, T‑166/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, paras 28 to 30
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-62/12)

‛Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access — Inadmissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Confirmatory measure’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision refusing access to Council documents after a fresh application — Decision not identifying new factors and referring to the statement of reasons for the first decision — Purely confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(7), 6(1), 7 and 8(1)) (see paras 19-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the letter of the Council of 1 December 2011 (reference 24/c/01/11) refusing to grant the applicant full access to the opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (document No 6865/09) on the draft amendments of the European Parliament to the European Commission’s draft regulation amending 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

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — von Storch and Others v ECB

(Case T‑492/12)

‛Action for annulment — Decisions adopted by the ECB — Technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions — Measures seeking to maintain the availability of collateral — Temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Decisions of the European Central Bank approving the adoption of measures concerning Eurosystem refinancing operations and the eligibility and availability of collateral — No binding legal effect on the applicant — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Guidance of the European Central Bank ECB/2012/23) (see paras 29, 32, 38, 42)

2. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an action for annulment or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU, 268 TFEU, 277 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 44-46)

3. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Measures of general scope — Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity — Obligation on national courts to apply national procedural rules in such a way as to allow the legality of EU measures to be challenged — Opening of an action for annulment before the EU judicature in the absence of remedies before the national courts — Exclusion (Art. 19(1), second para., TEU; Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, primarily, of the ECB’s decision of 6 September 2012 concerning a certain number of technical characteristics relating to Eurosystem Outright Monetary Transactions on the secondary sovereign debt markets, secondly, of the decision of the ECB of 6 September 2012 adopting additional measures intended to maintain the availability of collateral for counterparties in order to maintain their access to Eurosystem transactions to provide liquidity and, in the alternative, of Guideline 2012/641/EU of the ECB of 10 October 2012 amending Guideline ECB/2012/18 on additional temporary measures relating to Eurosystem refinancing operations and eligibility of collateral (ECB/2012/23) (OJ 2012 L 284, p. 14).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

—

Conditions

—

Unlawfulness

—

Refusal of the Court registry to accept letters to the First Advocate General and seeking re-examination of decisions by the General Court in cases under appeal

—

Refusal not constituting illegality

—

Actions for damages

—

Action manifestly devoid of legal foundation (Arts 256(2) TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 62; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 17(1); Instructions to the Registrar of the Court, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 14-19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Compensation action seeking reparation of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the refusal of the Court registry to accept certain documents lodged by the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs.
41

The Commission contends that there is no urgency, observing that the economic malaise which is affecting the entire Greek population is unrelated to the implementation of the contested decision and that any inability of the farmers to repay the aid does not constitute per se serious and irreparable harm for the Hellenic Republic itself. The harm pleaded with regard to public order is theoretical and uncertain. The fact that certain farmers are obliged to repay unlawful aid does not automatically mean that they will cause disturbances. Nor has it been proved that farmers were at the origin of the disturbances that occurred in Athens at the beginning of the year, it being very probable that those disturbances were caused by the inhabitants of the city, who by definition are not farmers. General and vague fears concerning hypothetical events which might occur in the future cannot constitute the requisite serious and irreparable harm. As for the administrative burden resulting from recovery of the aid from numerous beneficiaries, this cannot constitute serious and irreparable harm for the Hellenic Republic, because it would be illogical to regard the measures required for the very implementation of the contested decision as constituting harm.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — Afepadi and Others v Commission

(Case T‑354/12)

‛Action for annulment — Health claims made in the labelling and advertising of foods — Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 — Recitals 11, 14 and 17 — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Action directed solely against certain recitals of Regulation No 432/2012 — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25-36)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 40, 41)

Re:

In particular, an action for the annulment of recitals 11, 14 and 17 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi), Elaborados Dietéticos, SA, Nova Diet, SA, Laboratorios Vendrell, SA and Ynsadiet, SA are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2014 — Afepadi and Others v Commission

(Case T‑354/12)

‛Action for annulment — Health claims made in the labelling and advertising of foods — Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 — Recitals 11, 14 and 17 — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Action directed solely against certain recitals of Regulation No 432/2012 — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25-36)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 40, 41)

Re:

In particular, an action for the annulment of recitals 11, 14 and 17 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 of 16 May 2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — 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 7-9)

2. Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Inadmissible (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 10, 11, 15, 18)

3. 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 which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation — Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13, 14, 16-18)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the payment reminders of 23 January and 8 February 2013 addressed by ECHA to the applicant on the ground that it did not meet the conditions in order to benefit from the reduction of fees for small undertakings.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑436/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 28 May 2013 in Case F‑67/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20, 21)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Lawfulness (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45; Council Regulation No 267/2012, Art. 46(3)) (see paras 25, 28-30, 34-36, 40)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, in so far as they concern the applicant, of: (i) Council Common Position 2008/479/CFSP of 23 June 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 43); (ii) Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29); (iii) Council Common Position 2008/652/CFSP of 7 August 2008 amending Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 213, p. 58); (iv) Council Decision 2009/840/CFSP of 17 November 2009 implementing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 64); (v) Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2009 of 17 November 2009 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Decision 2008/475/EC (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 31); (vi) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); (vii) Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); (viii) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1); and (ix) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Mahmoud Jannatian is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the President of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission

(Case T-462/13 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery and the cancellation of any outstanding payments — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to show 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. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

2. 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 ordering recovery of State aid — No situation likely seriously to compromise the achievement by a public-law territorial entity below State level of its public service tasks (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Decision addressed to the Member State and not to the beneficiary — Account taken of national implementing measures — Non-binding measures — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29-31, 39)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision ordering recovery of State aid — Whether there exists any means of obtaining legal redress before the national court against national implementing measures — Power of the EU judicature to take such means of redress into consideration when assessing whether the application for interim measures is well founded — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 34-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2013) 3204 final of 19 June 2013 on State aid SA.28599 (C 23/2010) (ex NN 36/2010, ex CP 163/2009) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas (other than Castilla-La Mancha).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Delipapier v Commission

(Case T‑238/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 20, 21, 25-31, 35-37, 49)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Sphère France and of Schweitzer SAS.