ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – Lind v Commission

(Case T-5/09)

Action for damages – Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see para. 24)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Not constituting unlawfulness (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC; Art. 141 EA) (see paras 29-30)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2011 – Mugraby v Council and Commission

(Case T-292/09)

Action for failure to act – Failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt measures against the Republic of Lebanon – Alleged violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon – Manifest inadmissibility – Actions for damages – Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law

1. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Commission to address a recommendation to the Council concerning suspension of Community aid to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1638/2006, Art. 28) (see paras 46-50)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Council to request the Commission to submit to it a proposal for measures concerning assistance given to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Arts 208 EC and 232, third para., EC) (see paras 54-55)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 59)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – Wide discretion of the Council and the Commission in managing the external policy of the Union – No grant of rights to individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 66-73)

5. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Provision constituting a clear and precise obligation, not subject to the intervention of a subsequent measure – Article 86 of the Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – No direct effect (Art. 300(7) EC; Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon, Art. 86) (see paras 73-81)

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of its alleged infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and (ii) for compensation for damage claimed to have been suffered by the applicant in consequence of the Council’s and the Commission’s inaction.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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 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 17-18)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-50)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-55)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid – National implementing measures – National rights of action – Effect (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 57)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 58)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Decision on the recovery of State aid – Public interest defended by the Commission and the interest of the beneficiary of the aid – No exceptional circumstances – Primacy of the public interest (Art. 88(2) EC; Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 61-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission decision C(2009) 8112 final of 19 November 2009 on the State aid C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni.

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 – 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 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 11-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension – Negative administrative decision (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Detailed statement of the subject-matter of the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 104(3)) (see para. 27)

4. Application for interim measures – Interest in bringing proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 28-32)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-36)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-45)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 46)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures relating to the selection of applications for funding submitted under the ‘Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries’ (EuropeAid/128608/C/ACT/Multi).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Concept – Condition for granting the interim measure – Capacity of new facts to call into question the assessments which determined the dismissal of the first application (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 17-19, 22)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage capable of affecting a general economic sector – Action brought not by a public law body but by individuals – Obligation to mitigate individual damage (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-54, 59, 61-62)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 63-64)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Irremediable change in market place – Included – Conditions – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 68)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Application to relations between a non-profit-making association and its members – Lawfulness – Conditions (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 70)

6. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Impossibility, for the Inuit people, of carrying on their economic activities by reason of the prohibition, by Regulation No 1007/2009, of trade in seal products – Implementing regulation making an exception to that prohibition in favour of Inuit communities – No proof that the implementing regulation was impracticable – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1007/2009; Commission Regulation No 737/2010) (see paras 84-90)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – 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 8-9)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament finding an obligation to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Situation entailing mere inconvenience for the applicant – Decision without enforcement measures – No imminent risk of serious financial loss – No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision of the European Parliament finding an obligation to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Parliament needing to bring proceedings before a competent national court where voluntary payment refused – No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 19)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts of the Parliament relating to the recovery of parliamentary allowances wrongly received.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/432/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 202, p. 11).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant

–

Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 18-19, 23-24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2010 (Case R 1116/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign FERTILITYINVIVO as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>10

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 274 TFEU) (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Excluded (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see para. 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION, first, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the issuing of a debit note for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 105 416.47, corresponding to the sums paid in advance to the applicant by Parthénon AE Oikodomikon – Technikon – Touristikon – Viomichanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion pursuant to Contract FAIR-CT98-9544 concluded in the context of the fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration and, second, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 14 July 2010 reminding the applicant of the principal outstanding sum, claimed in debit note No 3241004968.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. IEM – Erga – Erevnes – Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-49)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 61-64)

3. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see paras 63-64)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Whether directly concerned

–

Criteria

–

Decision of the Commission addressed to a Member State, reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and requiring partial reimbursement of sums paid

–

Action brought by a regional entity benefiting from that assistance and acting as management authority for the funds received

–

Not directly concerned

–

Inadmissibility

–

Repercussion of the financial consequences of the decision onto that regional entity

–

No effect (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 29-30, 32-35, 37, 39-44, 48-53

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Opening of the investigation – Duty of the institutions to keep the undertakings concerned informed – Scope – Capacity of undertaking concerned – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No1225/2009, Art. 5(10) and (11)) (see paras 20-22)

2. European Union law – Principles – Proportionality – Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Proportionate nature – Criteria for assessment – Discretion of the EU legislature in the matter of common commercial policy – Judicial review – Limits (Art. 5, fourth para., EU; Council Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 36-38)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of conferring a benefit on the party who brought it – Scope (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 64).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. DBV Deutscher Brennstoffvertrieb Würzburg GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 27)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Assessment at the time the action was brought (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 30)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Person belonging to a closed circle of persons — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 33-35)