ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 –

Roos and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑710/21 R INTP)

(Interim relief – Members of the European Parliament – Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of any urgency)

1. Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 9-12)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 24)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Risk of fundamental rights being undermined – Risk not in itself constituting serious damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure – Particularly serious prima facie case – Irrelevant (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 28)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Need to pleas the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 34)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 36)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. The order of 5 November 2021, Roos and Others v Parliament (T‑710/21 R) is revoked.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 –

IL and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑724/21 R)

(Application for interim measures – Civil Service – Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 8-11)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 14)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 25)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Risk of fundamental rights being undermined – Risk not in itself constituting serious damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure – Particularly serious nature of the prima facie case – Irrelevant (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 27)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Need to pleas the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 30)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 15 November 2021, IL and Others v Parliament (T‑724/21 R) is set aside.
Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court of 8 June 2022 – Hungary v Commission

(Case T‑104/22 R)

(Interim measures – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – European Structural and Investment Funds – Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 – Documents originating from a Member State – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action – Pleas concerning the applicability of the exception to the right of public access laid down by Regulation No 1049/2001 and breach of the obligation of loyal cooperation – Pleas not prima facie unfounded (Art. 4 TEU; Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 1049/2001, Recital 10 and Arts 2(3) and 4(1)(a), (2), (4) and (5), and No 1303/2013, Recital 10 and Art. 73) (see paras 19, 20, 43-48, 50-52)

2. EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Exceptions to the right of access to documents – Documents originating from a Member State – Power of the Member State to request the institution not to disclose documents – Competence of the institution – Review of the merits of the refusal to grant access having regard to the exceptions set out in that regulation – Scope – Obligation to state reasons (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(1) to (3) and (5)) (see paras 33-37)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Commission decision granting partial access to documents originating from the authorities of a Member State – Impossibility of subsequently restoring their confidentiality – Included (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 54, 57-60)

Operative part

1. Operation of the European Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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, concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from the Hungarian authorities, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from those authorities.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Third party capacity (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 24(6) and 123(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION initiating third-party proceedings to contest the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The third-party application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Portuguese Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Transnáutica – Transportes e Navegação, SA, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/75

Action brought on 17 February 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-78/04)

(2004/C 106/148)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by Sumitomo Chemical (UK) PLC, London, United Kingdom, represented by Mr K. Van Maldegem and Mr C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the annulment of Article 3 (and annex II), Article 4(2), Article 5(3), Article 10(2), second paragraph, Article 11(3), Article 13 and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000;

— declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

— declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 Euro for damages suffered as a result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and arguments invoked by the applicant are the same as those invoked in Case T-75/04.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 281/29

Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission

(Case T-333/05)

(2005/C 281/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Kristine Ezerniece Liljeberg (Brussels, Belgium), and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— Annul the decision appointing the applicants in so far as it establishes their grade as grade A*6;

— Consequently, wholly restore the applicants' rightful career prospects (including giving proper weight to their experience in the grade thus adjusted, their promotion rights and their pension rights), whilst observing strict equality in relation to the other officials who were successful candidates in the same competition and work in European institutions other than the Commission;

— Grant the applicants default interest at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank on all the sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their grade in the decision of recruitment and the grade to which they should have been entitled, up to the date on which the decision properly grading them is taken;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are officials of the Commission entrusted with lawyer-linguist duties who were recruited on the basis of lists of suitable candidates resulting from competitions at LA 7/LA 6 levels before 1 May 2004. Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides that in such a case the institutions may recruit lawyer-linguists at grade A*7 instead of A*6. However, the Commission did not exercise that power and recruited the applicants at grade A*6.

The applicants are challenging that decision with their application, claiming that the other institutions would have appointed successful candidates in the same position at grade A*7 and that the Commission itself employs lawyer-linguists as temporary agents at grade A*7. On that basis, the applicants claim infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of assignment to an equivalent post and grade, of Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam and, finally, of Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission assured them that they would be recruited at grade A*7 and, on that basis, they allege infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of good administration, the principle of good faith, the principle of transparency and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/42

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-37/05)

(2005/C 82/75)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by World Wide Tobacco España (WWTE) S.A. of Madrid (Spain), represented by Miguel Odriozola Alén, Marta Marañón Hermoso and Adrian Emch, of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. reduce the fine imposed on WWTE in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 20 October 2004;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision at issue is the same as in case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission (1).

The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).

In particular, it is stated that the Commission applied more severe dissuasive factors against the applicant than against other Spanish processors, in the calculation of the basic amount of the fine imposed. Futhermore, the applicant's conduct cannot be imputed to its parent companies Trans-Continental Corporation Leaf Tobacco, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Standard Commercial Corporation.

Likewise, the applicant submits that the guidelines on the calculation of fines and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed, in so far as the Commission failed to take into consideration attenuating circumstances that it is the first time that the raw tobacco has been investigated, that the applicant put an end to the infringements as soon as the Commission took action, and in 1996 and 1997 the agreements were not implemented.

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 60/49

Action brought on 19 January 2006 — Deltafina v Commission

(Case T-12/06)

(2006/C 60/91)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Deltafina (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, R. Jacchia, A. Terranova, I. van Bael and J. F. Bellis)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the fine or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on it pursuant to Article 2 of the Decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case seeks the annulment of the fine of EUR 30 million imposed on it pursuant to Article 2 of the contested Decision, which is the same as that in issue in Case T-11/06 Romana Tabacchi v Commission, on the ground that the Commission unlawfully deprived it of the immunity from fines which was granted pursuant to point 8(b) of the Commission Notice of 2002 on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (1).

It should be explained in this respect that the defendant revoked the conditional immunity granted to the applicant because of the latter's announcement, made during a meeting of the Governing Board of the Associazione Professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani (Italian Professional Association of Tobacco Processors), that it had made a request for favourable treatment to the Commission.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

— that it informed the Commission in advance that it would be impossible for it not to reveal that it had submitted the request for favourable treatment;

— that the Commission had accepted that it was impossible for Deltafina not to reveal that it had submitted a request for favourable treatment;

— that the Commission officials did not inform Deltafina that its announcement that it had submitted a request for favourable treatment would entail the loss of conditional immunity;

— that Deltafina did not submit its own request for favourable treatment in concert with its principal competitors; and

— that Deltafina's disclosure that it had submitted a request for favourable treatment in no way prejudiced the Commission's investigation.

As regards the reduction of the fine, the applicant submits that:

— The basic amount of the fine imposed by the Commission is clearly excessive and disproportionate, having regard to the modest value of the market concerned, Deltafina's reduced turnover and the fact that the breach did not have any impact on the market;

— The Commission erroneously attributed Deltafina's conduct to its parent company;

— The reduction of the fine and the assessment of mitigating circumstances do not adequately reflect the specific facts of the case, in the light, in particular, of the new interpretative practices under the 2002 Notice.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.2002, p. 3.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/43

Action brought on 18 July 2006 — Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission

(Case T-195/06)

(2006/C 212/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: Tommaso Salonico and Gian Luca Zampa, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the decision in part, in particular Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and reduce the penalty imposed on Solexis accordingly;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicant's costs with regard to the payment in whole or in part of the penalty or in respect of provision of the bank guarantee.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as that in Case T-185/06 L'Air Liquide v Commission. That decision laid down that Solexis is jointly and severally liable with Edison SpA for a fine of EUR 25 619 million. The applicant's liability derives exclusively from the conduct of the company Ausimont SA which, at the time of the facts, was subject to sole control by Edison.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues that the penalty imposed on it by the decision which is the subject-matter of the action should be regarded as wrongly set, owing to:

— incorrect assessment of the duration of the infringement, which took place from May/September 1997 to May 2000 and not, as regards the applicant itself, from May 1995 to December 2000;

— incorrect assessment concerning the main effect on and application to the market of the infringement and of the passive role played by the applicant, in the period from May 1995 to May/September 1997 inclusive;

— non-participation of the applicant in the agreement on the limitation of capacity. When imposing the penalty the Commission disregarded the fact that Ausimont never joined, either in 1997 or subsequently, the agreement on the restriction/limitation of production capacity. The infringement attributable to Ausimont is therefore less serious than that committed by other undertakings on account of its lesser effect on competition, and also in accordance with the fundamental principles of equal treatment, fairness and proportionality;

— failure to take into account its cooperation. In fact the defendant did not grant the applicant any benefit with regard to its cooperation, or as a result of its participation in the leniency programme, or in respect of the mitigating circumstance provided for by the Guidelines.

Finally, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/19

Action brought on 4 December 2006 — Nynäs Petroleum and Nynas Belgium v Commission

(Case T-347/06)

(2007/C 20/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: AB Nynäs Petroleum (Stockholm, Sweden) and Nynas Belgium AB (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: A. Howard, Barrister, and M. Dean, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it imputes joint and several liability to AB Nynas;

— annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 13.5 million on Nynas, or in the alternative, reduce that fine as appropriate; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, by which the Commission found that the applicants, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by regularly and collectively fixing, for sales and purchases of road pavement bitumen in the Netherlands, the gross price, a uniform rebate on the gross price for participating road builders and a smaller maximum rebate on the gross price for other road builders.

In support of their application, the applicants submit, first of all, that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in holding Nynäs Petroleum jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by Nynas Belgium as Nynas Belgium operated as an autonomous legal entity that determined its commercial policy independently from Nynäs Petroleum. According to the applicants, the Commission has not demonstrated that Nynäs Petroleum had the power to direct the operations of Nynas Belgium to the point of depriving it of any real independence in determining its own course of action on the market.

Secondly, the applicants allege that the Commission disregarded the provisions of the Leniency Notice (1) contrary to the principles of legitimate expectations and equal treatment, when it dismissed the value of the information voluntarily provided by the applicants under Part B of the Leniency Notice and refused to grant the applicants a reduction for cooperation. The applicants claim that the Commission among others committed the following errors of law and assessment:

— the Commission wrongly concluded that the information provided by the applicants did not of its nature strengthen the Commission's ability to prove the infringement, since other participants in the infringement had already admitted the infringement and other replies to the request for information had already confirmed the existence of a system of meetings;

— the Commission wrongly concluded that the information provided by the applicants did not constitute significant added value.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)