ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Natural or legal persons

—

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

—

Whether directly concerned

—

Criteria

—

Regulation establishing a single total allowable catch for the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic

—

Action by owners or operators of vessels engaged in that fishing

—

Not directly concerned

—

Determination by a Member State, prior to the entry into force of the regulation of the method of sharing the fishing quota allocated

—

No effect (Council Regulation No 40/2013, Arts 5 and 10(1), and Annexes I, I A and I B) (see paras 14, 18, 22, 25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 40/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available in EU waters and, to EU vessels, in certain non-EU waters for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are subject to international negotiations or agreements (OJ 2013 L 23, p. 54), as amended, in so far as it amalgamates the northern and southern components of the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic in order to establish the TAC (total allowable catch) for blue whiting set out in Annexes I A and I B of that regulation.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The applicants, Pesquerias Riveirenses, SL, and others, are ordered to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
1.

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — End of the fourteenth day following the date of publication of the measure in question — Calculation (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 16, 17, 20, 23)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission

(Case T‑244/13)

‛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 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

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.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2014 — Sharp v OHIM (BIG PAD)

(Case T‑567/13)

‛Community trademark — Application for Community figurative mark BIG PAD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive nature — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Figurative mark BIG PAD (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 23, 24)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 26)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (see paras 29-31)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009; Council Directive 89/104) (see para. 33)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2013 (Case R 2131/2012‑2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign BIG PAD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

CMBG v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑290/13)

‛Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. 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 — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33, 34)

2. Actions for damages — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to rule on the legality of a protocol of agreement concluded between a Member State and the European Stability Mechanism — Not included (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(4)) (see paras 42‑47)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 49, 50)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage resulting from failure of an institution to act — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

5. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to review the legality of measures not emanating from the institutions, organs or bodies of the Union — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 56, 58)

6. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Application for interim measures — Application submitted in the same document as the main action — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 61)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T‑354/13)

‛Action for annulment — Protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski’ or Kołacz śląski’ — Rejection of the application for annulment of the registration — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision since withdrawn — Admissibility of new pleas — Limits — Hypothetical acts not yet adopted (see para. 32)

3. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision — Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law — Not relevant to the assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 34-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged Commission decision contained in the letter of 8 April 2013 from the Director-General of the Agriculture and Rural Development Directorate-General of the Commission rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of the term ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckhandwerks eV is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T‑354/13)

‛Action for annulment — Protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski’ or Kołacz śląski’ — Rejection of the application for annulment of the registration — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25, 26)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision since withdrawn — Admissibility of new pleas — Limits — Hypothetical acts not yet adopted (see para. 32)

3. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision — Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law — Not relevant to the assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 34-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged Commission decision contained in the letter of 8 April 2013 from the Director-General of the Agriculture and Rural Development Directorate-General of the Commission rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of the term ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

2. Economic and monetary policy — Monetary policy — Coordination of monetary policies — Informal meeting of Member States using the euro within the Eurogroup — Autonomous entity — Imputation of the declarations adopted to the Commission or the European Central Bank — Exclusion (Art. 137 TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 39, 41-45)

3. Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Coordination of economic policies — European stability mechanism — Possibility of the Commission and the European Central Bank exercising review powers — Exclusion (Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Arts 1, 2 and 32(2)) (see paras 47, 48)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Declarations adopted by the Eurogroup — Not included (Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 51-53, 60)

5. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the statement of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mrs Chrisanthi Christodoulou and Mrs Maria Stavrinou are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB).
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Istituto di vigilanza dell’urbe v Commission

(Case T‑579/13)

‛Action for annulment and damages — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of security guard and reception services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-23)

2. 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 — Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see paras 26-29, 35, 36)

3. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 30-32)

4. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (see paras 42-45, 53)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 75, 76)

Re:

ACTION, first, for annulment of the decision of the Commission rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in connection with the call for tenders published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (2013/S 101-172120) and awarding lot No 1 concerning the provision of security guard and reception services to another tenderer, as well as any prior, associated or subsequent act, including the contract concluded with the successful tenderer, and, second, for compensation for the damage sustained on account of the award of the contract to the successful tenderer.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
8

The procedure for granting stability support to an ESM Member is described in Article 13 of the ESM Treaty as follows: ‘1. An ESM Member may address a request for stability support to the Chairperson of the Board of Governors. Such a request shall indicate the financial assistance instrument(s) to be considered. On receipt of such a request, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission, in liaison with the [European Central Bank], with the following tasks: (a) to assess the existence of a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole or of its Member States, unless the [European Central Bank] has already submitted an analysis under Article 18(2); (b) to assess whether public debt is sustainable. Wherever appropriate and possible, such an assessment is expected to be conducted together with the [International Monetary Fund]; (c) to assess the actual or potential financing needs of the ESM Member concerned. 2. On the basis of the request of the ESM Member and the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Board of Governors may decide to grant, in principle, stability support to the ESM Member concerned in the form of a financial assistance facility. 3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission — in liaison with the [European Central Bank] and, wherever possible, together with the [International Monetary Fund] — with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an “MoU”) detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors. The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the [FEU Treaty], in particular with any act of [EU] law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned. 4. The European Commission shall sign the MoU on behalf of the ESM, subject to prior compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 and approval by the Board of Governors. 5. The Board of Directors shall approve the financial assistance facility agreement detailing the financial aspects of the stability support to be granted and, where applicable, the disbursement of the first tranche of the assistance. … 7. The European Commission — in liaison with the [European Central Bank] and, wherever possible, together with the [International Monetary Fund] — shall be entrusted with monitoring compliance with the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility.’
1.

The operation of Decision AFA-C‑0000004274-77-09/F of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 24 January 2014 is suspended in so far as it grants to a third party, under 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, access to a version of the report on the chemical safety and the analysis of the possible replacements for the substance Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), which is more detailed than the version with the material specified in the application for interim measures blanked out and which is set out in Annexes A.4.5 and A.4.6. of that application, with the exception, first, of the information on the classification and labelling of substances and, secondly, of the data specifically and exclusively concerning Arkema France, Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn S.A. and Vinyloop Ferrara S.p.A.
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T‑142/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — 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 13-15)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Risk that fundamental rights might be affected — Risk not in itself constituting serious damage (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 4, 16 and 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17, 18, 20-23, 25)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Criteria for assessment — Account taken of the subjective interest of the applicant — Exclusion (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 28)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 November 2014 —

Secolux v Commission and CdT

(Case T‑90/14)

‛Action for annulment and for compensation — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Safety Checks — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Misidentification of the defendant — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Publications Office of the European Union — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted in the context of a public tendering procedure for services — Attributability to the Commission — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; Decision of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2009/496, Art. 13(2)) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Commission decision, in a public tendering procedure for services, not to accept a tender — Action against the Translation Centre for Bodies of the European Union — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 17)

Re:

First, an application for the annulment of (i) the Commission’s decision of 3 December 2013 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the open call for tenders AO 02/2013/OIL, for the conclusion of a framework agreement for the provision of services relating to safety checks (OJ 2013/S 156-271471), and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Translation Centre for Bodies of the European Union (CdT) and the Publications Office of the European Union (OP).