ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2012 – Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-301/11)

Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in the light of the situation in Tunisia – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing proceedings – Out of time – No force majeure – No excusable error – Application for alteration of the contested measure – Claim for compensation – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time limits – Mandatory – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 15-16)

2. Actions for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Regulation concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities or bodies in the light of the situation in Tunisia – Date of communication of the grounds justifying the regulation in respect of those persons, entities or bodies (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 101/2011) (see paras 17-20)

3. Procedure – Time limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Meaning – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 29, 32)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Union judicature – Regulation concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities or bodies in the light of the situation in Tunisia – No jurisdiction to substitute another measure for the contested measure to amend it – Pleas for the unblocking of certain frozen funds or economic resources – Inadmissibility (Arts 261 TFEU and 264, first para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 101/2011) (see para. 62)

5. 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 – Application for compensation in respect of damage caused by an EU institution – No indications as to the loss suffered – Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c), and (6) (see paras 69-72, 76)

6. Procedure – Compulsory intervention – Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 24(6), 115 and 116) (see paras 79-80)

Re:

First, action for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant and, second, an application seeking an order for the Council to adopt certain derogations to the freezing of funds imposed by the regulation and a claim for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 —

Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission



(Case T-546/11)

Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility

1. Proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant, not the EU judicature (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action concerning a letter of an institution inseparable from contractual relations between the latter and the applicant — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 32-34, 50)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Applicant not having expressly requested reclassification — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion from reclassification (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 58, 59)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 2 August 2011 confirming the conclusions of the financial audit concerning the financial statements declared by Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, concerning four contracts concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-2006), and informing Technion of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act — Omission repaired after commencement of proceedings — Subject matter of the action ceases to exist — No need to adjudicate (Art. 266 TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Failure of an institution to comply with a judgment annulling one of its measures — Annulled measure not producing prejudicial effects warranting an order for compensation — No liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 22-29)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 266 TFEU in failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council , not published in the ECR, and, in addition, a claim for damages under Article 340 TFEU.

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration of failure to act, brought by Alfastar Benelux SA.

2. The claim for damages brought by Alfastar Benelux is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Alfastar Benelux is ordered to bear 50% of its own costs and pay 50% of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The Council is ordered bear 50% of its own costs and pay 50% of the costs incurred by Alfastar Benelux.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263, first para., TFEU) (see paras 18, 19, 24, 25, 32)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Pre-litigation phase of infringement proceedings — Commission decision to close its file on a complaint — Not included (Arts 258, first para., TFEU and 263, first para., TFEU) (see paras 20, 23, 29)

3. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings — To be exercised at its discretion — Procedural position of plaintiffs different from that in a competition matter (Art. 258 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see para. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision to bring an end to EU pilot procedure No 2070/11/SNCO, as referred to in the letter of 27 September 2012, sent to the applicants under reference SANCO/A2/AM/kva (2012) 1245353.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Darius Nicolai Spirlea and Mihaela Spirlea are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-457/12)

‛Community trade mark — Community word mark STORMBERG — Appeal against the request for conversion of a Community trade mark into national trade mark applications — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Procedure for conversion into national trade mark application (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 58, 59 and 112) (see paras 36, 39, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 428/2012-4), relating to the request for conversion of a Community trade mark into national trade mark applications submitted by Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 January 2015 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission

(Case T‑482/12)

‛Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of formal requirements — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility — Development at the reply stage — Irrelevant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 30, 37-40, 50, 51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant full access to the documents in the file relating to the contract LIEN 97-2011 and, in the alternative, application for partial annulment of the Commission’s decision of 28 August 2012 in response to the applicant’s letter of 27 July 2012 requesting that the Commission comply with the judgment of 22 May 2012 in Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (T‑300/10, EU:T:2012:247).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea directed against a superfluous ground — Invalid plea in law — Rejection

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea directed against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on costs — Inadmissible where all other pleas are rejected

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2))

4. Judicial proceedings — Court costs — Costs incurred by the Civil Service Tribunal as a result of an action which is an abuse of process by an official — Order for the official to refund those costs

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 90(a))

1. The Union incurs non-contractual liability only if a series of cumulative conditions are met as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the defendant institution, the actual fact of the alleged damage and the existence of a causal link between the contested acts and the damage complained of.

The fact that a decision of an institution is vitiated by an illegality is not a sufficient condition for the Union to incur non-contractual liability, since for such liability to be incurred the appellant must have been able to prove the actual fact of the damage he claims and the causal link between that damage and the illegality complained of.

(see paras 21-22)

See:

T‑46/08 P Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-77 and II‑B‑1-479, paras 66 and 67 and the case-law cited therein; T‑143/09 P Commission v Petrilli [2010] ECR-SC, para. 45 and the case-law cited therein

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 29)

See:

C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68 and the case-law cited therein

T‑616/11 P Marcuccio v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, para. 44

3. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 35)

See:

T‑491/11 P Marcuccio v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, para. 40; T‑616/11 P Marcuccio v Commission , para. 52 and the case-law cited therein

4. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 41-44)

See:

T‑616/11 P Marcuccio v Commission , paras 40 and 52; T‑286/11 P Marcuccio v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, paras 52 and 69
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

13 January 2014

Georgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development report — 2008 and 2009 appraisal periods — Half-time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Staff appraisal reports covering the tasks carried out in the service to which he was assigned — Designation for union purposes — Actions dismissed at first instance as manifestly unfounded — Appeal dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded’

Appeals:

against the orders of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Case F-70/11 Lebedef v Commission [2012] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and in Case F-109/11 Lebedef v Commission [2012] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have those orders set aside.

Held:

The appeals are dismissed. Mr Giorgio Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

Summary

Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments presented before the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility (Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)) Appeals — Grounds of appeal — Ground seeking the rectification of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 139(1); Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 84(1))
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑486/13 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 25 June 2013 in Case F‑28/12 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

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 21-23)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31, 41-43, 45, 53)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Account to be taken of lack of diligence by the applicant (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2006/42, Art. 11) (see paras 32, 37, 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013 on a measure taken by Denmark under Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

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 — Community law — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Measure not producing binding legal effects — Measure not capable of being the subject-matter of an annulment action — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 23-27)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision to exclude an MEP taken by his political group — Measure not imputable to the Parliament — Not included — Declaration of the Parliament explaining the consequences of excluding an MEP from his political group — Measure affecting only the internal organisation of the Parliament — Not included — No infringement of the right to an effective remedy (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 27, 28, 32, 33)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative requirements (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 39)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Damage arising from the exclusion of an MEP from his political group — Included — Not serious in nature — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42-46, 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the enforcement of the measure of the European Parliament taken in the form of a declaration of its President at the plenary session of 10 June 2013, according to which, as from 3 June 2013, the applicant is to be regarded as a non-attached member and is thus excluded from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ as from that date.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief 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 — 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 16-18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a decision of the Commission declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Plea concerning imputability to the State of the contested measures — Plea not prima facie lacking in foundation (Arts 107(1) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20-32)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-48)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Public interest defended by the Commission and interest of the aid beneficiary — Exceptional circumstances — Partial suspension of implementation (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-55)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Modification or setting aside — Condition — Variation or cancellation — Concept (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 108) (see para. 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION seeking the suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2013) 1501 final of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (2011/C) (ex NN 41/2010) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Order of 28 February 2014 in Case T‑305/13 R is cancelled .

2. The operation of Article 5 of Commission Decision C(2013) 1501 final of 20 March 2013 on the measures SA.23425 (2011/C) (ex NN 41/2010) implemented by Italy in 2004 and 2009 for SACE BT S.p.A. is suspended in so far as the Italian authorities are obliged to recover from that company an amount in excess of EUR [confidential].

3. Costs are reserved .