ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 – 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 13-18)

2. Applications 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 21-22)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from non-penal fund-freezing measures – Purely protective measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27, 31)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage – Damage arising from non-penal fund-freezing measures – Purely protective measures – Damage not capable of better remedy at interlocutory stage than in the main action (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-33)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Strictly pecuniary loss – None (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-43)

6. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Connection of the measure sought with the pleas in the main proceedings – Claim for damages and interest exceeding the scope of the action in the main proceedings – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-53)

7. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas showing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – No precise indication of the subject-matter of the claim – Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d) and 104(3)) (see para. 54)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures and for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 – 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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16, 19-20, 22, 38, 51)

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)) (see para. 17)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Decision not to include a substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Risk normally having to be borne by an undertaking operating in the phytopharmaceuticals market – Damage not serious in natur e (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33-34)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71) and, if necessary, other interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

8 March 2012

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Act adversely affecting an official — Implied refusal — Duty to state reasons — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the judgment delivered by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (single judge) on 14 December 2010 in Case F‑1/10 Marcuccio v Commission, seeking the annulment in part of that judgment.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. The cross-appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly devoid of any basis in law. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal. Each party is to bear its own costs of the cross-appeal.

Summary
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Interest in bringing proceedings

—

Need for an actual and current interest

—

Action against regulations concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

—

Applicant neither the addressee of the contested measures nor individually and/or directly concerned by them

—

Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 14-18

)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Action for suspension of operation of a measure already implemented – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief – Issuing of directions to third parties – Limits (Arts 256 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 14)

3. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18, 21)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – National measures for implementing customs debt – National rights of action – Effect – No urgency by reason of the need, under the terms of the contested measure, for an additional intervention of the national authorities applying substantive EU customs law (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 871(6)) (see paras 22-25)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-531/11)

‛Annulment action — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Lis pendens’

1. Proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 15)

2. Proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see para. 16)

Re:

Initially, action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), and Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), in so far as the applicant organisation’s name is maintained on the list of persons, groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources laid down with a view to combating terrorism.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.
Under the third paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), and also the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority (EFTA Authority), may, without prejudice to the second paragraph of that article, intervene in cases before the General Court where one of the fields of application of that Agreement is concerned. According to that second paragraph, natural or legal persons, including the EFTA Authority, may intervene in a case before the General Court if they can establish an interest in the result of that case, with the exception of cases between Member States, between EU institutions or between EU institutions and Member States.

In addition, the third paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute states that under some circumstances, apart from those excluded by the second paragraph of that article, the States, other than the Member States, which are parties to the EEA Agreement, and also the EFTA Authority, have a presumed interest in the result of a case, namely where that case concerns one of the fields of application of that Agreement. The EFTA Authority has an interest in intervening in a case which concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of Regulation No 1/2003, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(see paras 6, 7, 9-12)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-273/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — State aid scheme implemented by France in favour of radio broadcasting — Decision not to raise objections — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a Commission decision declaring State aid compatible with the internal market under certain conditions — Actions for restitution of taxes unduly levied brought earlier at the national level — Effects of the Commission decision — No ex post facto regularisation of measures of national law concerning the grant of the aid — Decision not unfavourable to the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Arts 108(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 27-30, 37)

2. Union law — Direct effect — National taxes incompatible with EU law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Time-limits — Lawfulness — Conditions — Compliance with the principle of effectiveness of EU law — Compliance with the principle that conditions for repayment action be comparable with those for similar domestic claims (see paras 32-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6483 final of 29 September 2010 concerning State aid scheme No C 4/2009 (ex N 679/97) implemented by the [French Republic] to promote radio broadcasting and declaring that scheme compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
2.

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date of notification of the decision — Commission decision on State aid closing the formal investigation procedure — Lodging of the decision at the permanent representation of the Member States concerned — Acknowledgment of receipt in the form of a stamp on the letter sending the decision — Stamp with no signature or in initials — Regular notification starting the period for commencing proceedings — Commission not obliged to verify the authorisation of the person receiving the letter — Internal rules of the permanent representation irrelevant (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2); Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 15, 25, 32-48)
2.

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Court having jurisdiction in the event of an appeal (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 145; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92) (see para. 13)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Boni-Claverie v Council

(Case T-350/11)

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Out of time – Clear inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – 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 11-12)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 16)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mrs Akisi Danièle Boni-Claverie is ordered to bear her own costs.
50

As regards, in particular, the procedure for free allocation on the basis of Article 10a of that directive and the contested decision, under Article 5(1) of the contested decision, each Member State is to identify all installations in its territory and eligible for free allocation under Article 10a of Directive 2003/87. Under Article 6(1) of the contested decision, the Member States are to divide each installation meeting those requirements into one or more sub-installations, as defined in that provision, as required. One of the categories of sub-installations referred to is that with a product benchmark. For each installation, the Member States are to collect from the operator all relevant information and data, in accordance with Article 7 of the contested decision. Under Article 9(1) of the contested decision, for incumbent installations, Member States are to determine historical activity levels of each installation for the baseline period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008, or, where they are higher, for the baseline period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010, on the basis of the data collected under Article 7. Article 9(2) of the contested decision provides that the product-related historical activity level, for each product for which a product benchmark has been determined as referred to in Annex I to that decision, is to refer to the median annual historical production of this product in the installation concerned during the baseline period.
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 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 para 6-8)

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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14, 16, 19)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Harm that can be pleaded by a Member State — Damage concerning undertakings and not a whole sector of the national economy — Not included (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 15, 16)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — No national measures implementing that decision — No proof of the lack of internal remedies allowing the undertaking concerned to avoid the serious and irreparable damage — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21, 22)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2012) 6345 final of 19 September 2012 on measures in favour of the undertaking ELAN d.o.o. [SA.26379 (C 13/2010) (ex NN 17/2010)].

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dimissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2013 — Planet v Commission

(Case T‑489/12)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Condition to be complied with in all actions before the EU judicature — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — Not included (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 340, first para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 32, 48)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility — Reclassification of the action — Exclusion (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 288 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 51-54)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking a declaration that, first, the refusal by the Commission to allow as eligible costs certain sums paid in advance of completion of the contracts ‘Ontology enabled E‑Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, ‘Fostering self-adaptive e‑government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, concluded as part of 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), is an infringement by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, that those sums are eligible costs and ought not to be repaid.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2013 — Andechser Molkerei Scheitz v Commission

(Case T-13/12)

‛Action for annulment and compensation — Public health — List of food additives authorised in foodstuffs — Steviol glycosides — Application inadmissible or manifestly unfounded’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — No action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 30-32, 41)

2. Actions for failure to act — Institution not called upon to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 42, 43)

3. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to action for annulment and action for failure to act — Scope (see paras 46-49, 51-54)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 56, 57)

5. 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 — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 58)

6. Actions for damages — Imminent and foreseeable damage — Establishing the liability of the Union — Referral to the General Court — Lawfulness (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 59)

7. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Actual and certain damage — Burden of proof — Action not containing any evidence or even offer of evidence — Action manifestly devoid of legal foundation (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and (e)) (see paras 59, 62, 65-69)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1131/2011 of the Commission of 11 November 2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to steviol glycosides (OJ 2011 L 295, p. 205), in so far as it authorises the use of steviol glycosides extracted from the leaves of the Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni plant only as food additives and not as vegetable ingredients of agricultural origin or as aromatic preparations, and a claim for compensation.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.