ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-198/12 R

Federal Republic of Germany

v

European Commission

‛Interim relief — Limit values for antimony, arsenic, barium, lead and mercury in toys — Commission’s refusal to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities and maintaining limit values for those substances — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of the interests’

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 15 May 2013

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))

Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Aim — Full effectiveness of the future decision on the merits without prejudging its sense or depriving it of effect — Application seeking measures outside the context of the main dispute and requiring a prima facie assessment of matters foreign to it — Inadmissibility — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Effects of the interim decision capable of going beyond those attaching to a judgment of annulment (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104)

Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Application for interim measures in the context of an action for annulment of a negative decision — Admissibility (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104)

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case (Art. 278 TFEU)

Approximation of laws — Article 114 TFEU — Procedure for approval of national provisions in derogation — Application seeking maintenance of pre-existing national provisions — Possibility of the applicant Member State basing its request on an assessment of the public health risk different from that used by the EU legislature — Obligation to establish a higher level of public health protection than the EU harmonisation measure — Duty to comply with the principle of proportionality (Art. 114(4) and (6) TFEU)

Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Art. 279 TFEU)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

(Case T-31/12)

‛Action for annulment — Structural funds — Measure not subject to review — Measure in part informative and in part preparatory — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter requesting an authority managing a Community initiative programme for additional information concerning the final report on implementation of the programme, before the expiry of the five-month period specified in Article 37(1), fourth paragraph, of Regulation No 1260/1999 — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 37(1), fourth para.) (see paras 32, 33, 39, 41, 49, 52)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 18 November 2011, mentioning as its subject: ‘Closure of the programme “Atlantic Area” 2000-2006, Approval of the Final Report, CCI: 2001 RG 16 0PC 006’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 December 2013 — Pri v OHIM — Belgravia Investment Group (PRONOKAL)

(Case T‑159/12)

‛Removal from the register — Pleading submitted at the time of discontinuance — Inadmissibility’

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Possibility for the General Court to alter the contested decision — Limits (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65) (see para. 24)

Re:

Firstly, action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 December 2011 (Case R 311/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Pri SA and Belgravia Investment Group Ltd, and, secondly, application for rejection of the application for registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods covered by the opposition proceedings.

Operative part

1. Case T‑159/12 is removed from the register of the General Court.

2. The pleadings lodged by Pri SA, contained in the letter filed at the Registry of the General Court on 13 September 2013, requesting, firstly, that the General Court state that the opposition was withdrawn; secondly, that it rescind the decision of the Opposition Division of 7 December 2010 in so far as it rejects in part the opposition; and, thirdly, that it order that the ‘release in full’ of the mark PRONOKAL be registered are dismissed as inadmissible.

3. Pri SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2014 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission

(Case T‑261/12)

‛Actions for damages — Public service contract — Tender procedure — Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia — Rejection of a tender — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. 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 27-29)

2. Judicial proceedings — Producing evidence — Time-limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1), and 48(1)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Serbia to annul the decision to award the contract to the applicant in tender procedure EuropeAid/131427/C/SER/RS, concerning the strengthening of the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia (OJ 2011/S 147-243259).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2014 — Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon v Commission

(Case T‑261/12)

‛Actions for damages — Public service contract — Tender procedure — Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia — Rejection of a tender — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. 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 27-29)

2. Judicial proceedings — Producing evidence — Time-limit — Evidence lodged out of time — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1), and 48(1)) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Delegation of the European Union in the Republic of Serbia to annul the decision to award the contract to the applicant in tender procedure EuropeAid/131427/C/SER/RS, concerning the strengthening of the institutional capacity of the Commission for protection of competition in Serbia (OJ 2011/S 147-243259).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
54

In the main proceedings, it will also be important to ascertain whether the applicants, in March 2003, when they sent the information at issue to the Commission in connection with the Leniency Notice, could rely on the fact that that information would enjoy, as information which is inherently confidential, an enduring protection from publication. In that regard, it is legitimate to consider, prima facie, that at that time the Commission’s position on the leniency issue was the same, in essence, as that which it defended as follows in the case which gave rise to the judgment in CDC Hydrogene Peroxide v Commission (paragraph 31): the risk of an action for damages being brought is a serious disadvantage which could in the future lead undertakings taking part in cartels to cease to co-operate, which is why it cannot be accepted that the protection of the professional secrecy of undertakings which cooperate with the Commission in cartel proceedings should be affected by an application for access to documents based exclusively on private law interests. In the case which gave rise to the judgment in EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission (paragraph 70), the Commission extended that position to proceedings under Regulation No 1/2003, to the effect that participants in a cartel who voluntarily disclose information are reasonably entitled to expect that the Commission will not disclose the documents in issue and that those documents will be used only for the purposes of the competition proceedings, including the review carried out by the Courts of the European Union. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that, as recently as last year, the Commission opposed similar requests for information made by courts and tribunals of Member States and non-Member States on similar grounds.
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 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 — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market — Consideration of the size of the undertaking (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13, 14, 16)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Decision addressed to the Member State and not to the beneficiary — Account taken of national implementing measures — Non-binding measures — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-21, 23, 24)

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 — No exceptional circumstances — Primacy of the public interest (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 27-29, 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

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

12 December 2013

Case T‑437/13 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 (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case F‑102/11 Marcuccio v Commission 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), paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission, paras 14 and 15
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2013 —Spain v Commission

(Case T-149/13)

‛Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Publication in the Official Journal — Inadmissibility’

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)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see para. 18)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Notice of Open Competition No EPSO/AST/126/12, to constitute a reserve list of assistants (AST 3), ‘Research’ sector, in the fields of ‘Biology, Life and Health Sciences’, ‘Chemistry’, ‘Physics and Materials Science’, ‘Nuclear Research’, ‘Civil and Mechanical Engineering’ and ‘Electrical Engineering and Electronics’ (OJ 2012, C 394 A, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — SCA Hygiène Products v Commission

(Case T‑232/13)

‛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 Regulation No 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 (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 —

Talanton v Commission

(Case T‑165/13)

‛Arbitration clause — Pocemon and Perform contracts concluded as part of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Audit report — No interest in bringing proceedings — Interest in seeking a declaration — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — Plea not accompanied by any explanation enabling its merit to be assessed — Inadmissibility (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see para. 32)

2. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Requirement that an interest in bringing proceedings subsist until the delivery of the court decision — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection and the principle of effectiveness (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 113 and 114(3) and (4)) (see paras 34, 35, 69, 71, 75)

3. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Refusal by the Commission to consider as eligible costs certain sums advanced by the beneficiary by way of implementation of the contracts — Request for repayment of advances — Action by the beneficiary against the Commission letter announcing its intention to issue a debit note — No definitive declaration of the debt — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Application inadmissible (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002; European Parliament and Council Decision No 1982/2006) (see paras 36, 37, 40, 41, 53)

4. EU budget — EU financial assistance — Obligation of the beneficiary to comply with the conditions for grant of the aid — Justification of costs incurred — Proceedings by the Commission for recovery of advances paid — Burden of proof (Art. 272 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Decision No 1982/2006) (see para. 72)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking a declaration by the Court, first, that the refusal by the Commission to allow as eligible costs certain sums paid to the applicant by way of the implementation of the Perform and Pocemon grant agreements constitutes a breach by the Commission of its contractual obligations, and, secondly, that there is no need to refund part of those sums, or the amount of the liquidate allowance specified by the Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

ANKO v Commission

(Case T‑17/13)

‛Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contract concerning the Pocemon project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Reminder letter — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Requirement that an interest in bringing proceedings subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 113 and 114(3) and (4)) (see para. 30)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court defined exclusively by Article 272 TFEU and the arbitration clause — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction and admissibility — Exclusion (Art. 272 TFEU) (see para. 31)

3. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Unilateral termination by the Commission based on non-performance of contractual obligations — Request for repayment of advances — Action brought by the beneficiary against the Commission’s letter announcing its intention to issue a debit note — Conditions for payment and due date not fixed — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Application inadmissible (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 71(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 78 and 79) (see paras 38, 39, 46-51, 53)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Pocemon project, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the amounts that it owes to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 June 2015 — In vivo v Commission

(Case T‑690/13)

‛Action for failure to act — Refusal of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to open an external investigation — Position defined — Application for directions to be issued — No direct concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Capacity to be a defendant — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Omissions allegedly committed by OLAF in the context of its investigatory functions — Action to be regarded as directed against the Commission (Art. 265 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 3; Commission Decision 1999/352) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Actions for failure to act — Position defined within the meaning of Article 265, second paragraph, TFEU before the action brought — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 17-19)

3. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Refusal of OLAF to open an external investigation — Not a challengeable act for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 3; Commission Decision 1999/352) (see paras 21-25)

4. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Directions issued to an institution — Not permissible (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 31)

Re:

ACTION seeking a declaration by the General Court that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) failed to act in refusing to open an external investigation and an order that it remedy the situation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.