ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

Euracoal and Others v Commission

(Case T‑739/17)

(Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2010/75/EU — Best available techniques conclusions — Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Considered of Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 44)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision establishing best available techniques conclusions for large combustion plants — Action brought by an association representing the coal industry’s interests — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75; Commission Decision 2017/1442) (see paras 46, 47, 81, 94, 103, 120, 121)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Environmental decision — Action brought by an association responsible for protecting the collective interests of undertakings — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 115, 118)

4. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Art. 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para. TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/75, Arts 4, 5 and 21) (see paras 126-132, 134)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1442 of 31 July 2017 establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions, under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, for large combustion plants (OJ 2017 L 212, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Polska Grupa Energetyczna S.A. (PGE), the French Republic, Elektrárny Opatovice, a.s., and Saale Energie GmbH, Sev.en EC, a.s., Freistaat Sachsen, Elektrárna Počerady, a.s., the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Client Earth.

3. The Association européenne du charbon et du lignite (Euracoal), Deutscher Braunkohlen-Industrie-Verein eV, Lausitz Energie Kraftwerke AG, Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft mbH and eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
41

In the last place, it must be borne in mind that the essential and main elements of the contract concluded following a tendering procedure for the award of a public contract are, on the one hand, performance of the contract by the successful tenderer and, on the other, payment of the contractually agreed sum by the contracting authority. In contrast, considerations relating to the reputation of the selected tenderer and the opportunity for it to use the award of a prestigious public contract as a reference in the context of a future tender or in other competitive contexts relate only to accidental and incidental elements of that contract. If the fact that an unsuccessful tenderer suffers a serious loss of profits by failing to obtain the contractually agreed sum, which is the essential and principal element of the public contract at issue, cannot justify the grant of an interim measure, this should also apply, and even more so, as regards the loss of those accidental and incidental elements (see, to that effect, order of 30 May 2017, Enrico Colombo and Corinti Giacomo v Commission, T‑690/16 R, not published, EU:T:2017:370, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited).
24

It should be recalled that under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is applicable to proceedings before the General Court by virtue of the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, and under Article 76(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, all applications must state the subject matter of the dispute, the pleas and arguments put forward and a brief statement of the applicant’s pleas in law and heads of claim. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, even without further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the essential matters of law and fact relied on are stated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see order of 27 March 2017, Frank v Commission, T‑603/15, not published, EU:T:2017:228, paragraphs 37 and 38 and the case-law cited).
90

In that regard, it should be noted that, having regard to the average duration of proceedings before the General Court, the decision on the substance in the present case will probably be delivered within two years (see, to that effect, order of 21 July 2017, Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission, T‑130/17 R, EU:T:2017:541, paragraph 47). Therefore, the applicant will be informed of the legality of the contested regulation well before the period required for the approval of any replacement substance. In that context, it must be pointed out that the applicant has not requested the application of the expedited procedure provided for in Article 151 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 3 of the contested regulation, it can potentially enjoy a ‘grace period’ until 8 September 2018 during which the Member States may maintain authorisations for plant protection products containing diflubenzuron. In addition, as it highlights in its application, a renewal procedure, subject to a strict deadline, is underway and could result, from 2018, in the conclusion that there is no genotoxic potential for the metabolite. In the Commission’s opinion, the date of closure of that procedure should be not long before 30 June 2019. Consequently, the lack of replacement product in the applicant’s substance portfolio does not appear to be an element relevant to the irreparable nature of the damage alleged.
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify a clerical mistake found in the introductory part of that judgment, in the name of one of the representatives of the defendant.
Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 18, 20, 21)
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 court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 51, 53, 54)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

Sonova Holding v EUIPO (HEAR THE WORLD)

(Case T‑70/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark HEAR THE WORLD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Aim — Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 17-20)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 21)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark HEAR THE WORLD (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 (Case R 1645/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign HEAR THE WORLD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action brought against the decision upholding an application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — Action that has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131)

(see paras 28, 29)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 November 2018 –

Front Polisario v Council

(Case T‑275/18)

(Action for annulment — Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part — Act concluding the agreement — Lack of applicability of the agreement to the territory of Western Sahara — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision of the Council concerning the conclusion of an agreement with a third country not producing legal effects in a territory controlled by that third State, the latter’s sovereignty over that territory not being internationally recognised — Action of a movement recognised as representing the people of that territory and participating in negotiations conducted by the United Nations with a view to establishing the status of that territory — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement) (see paras 26, 42)

2. International agreements — European Union Agreements — EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement — Territorial scope — Non-self-governing territory of Western Sahara falling outside the sovereignty of the parties — Not included (Communities-Morocco Partnership Agreement, Art. 11; EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement, Art. 1(15) (see paras 27, 28, 32-35, 41)

3. International agreements — European Union Agreements — EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement — Territorial scope — Waters adjacent to the territory of Western Sahara — Not included (EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement, Art. 1(15) (see paras 30-35, 41)

4. International agreements — European Union Agreements — Interpretation — Taking account of the subsequent practice on the implementation of the agreement — Scope — Purported intention of the European Union to implement the agreement in a manner incompatible with the principles of self-determination and of the relative effect of treaties — Incompatibility with the principle that Treaty obligations must be performed in good faith (EU-Morocco Aviation Agreement, Art. 1(15)) (see paras 37-39)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2018/146 of 22 January 2018 on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2018 L 26, p. 4).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic or the European Commission.

3. The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2019 –

Romańska v Frontex

(Case T‑212/18)

(Civil Service — Contract Staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Termination — Grounds for termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Discrimination and psychological harassment — Compensation claim — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 41, 42, 51)

2. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Meaning — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 53, 54, 56)

3. Actions brought by officials — Subject-matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 and 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 61)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 June 2017 by which the Executive Director of Frontex, acting as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, terminated the applicant’s employment contract with effect at the end of an eight-month notice period and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered on account of discrimination and psychological harassment by Frontex which culminated in the decision to terminate her contract.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2019 –

Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy v Commission

(Case T‑674/18)

(Action for annulment — State aid — 16th Law amending the Law on Nuclear Energy (Atomgesetz) — Implementation of a judgment of the Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) — Companies operating nuclear power stations — Cessation of operation — Financial compensation for the amounts of electricity not generated — Letter from the Commission — No requirement for formal notification under Article 108(3) TFEU — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment by reference to objective criteria — Commission letter stating the purpose of the 16th Law amending the Law on Nuclear Energy, namely seeking exclusively to implement the requirements laid down by a judgment of the Federal Constitution Court without having to notify it under Article 108(3) TFEU — Not included

(Arts 108(3) TFEU and 263 TFEU)

(see paras 33-41)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 4 July 2018, signed by the Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Competition and addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application of the Federal Republic of Germany for leave to intervene.

3. Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the President of the General Court of 28 May 2020 –

Darment v Commission

(Case T‑739/18 R)

(Application for interim relief – Satisfaction accorded to the main action – No need to adjudicate)

Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Satisfaction accorded to the main action – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU)

(see paras 1-4)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking a suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 September 2019 –

Triantafyllopoulos and Others v ECB

(Case T‑451/18)

(Action for damages — Harm allegedly caused to the applicants due to the absence of supervision of the Achaiki Cooperative Bank by the National Bank of Greece and the ECB — Limitation period — Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

1. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 24, 25, 28)

2. Non-contractual liability — Damage — Damage for which compensation is available — Concept (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 32)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 37)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage resulting from failure of an institution to act — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 38)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking reparation for harm which was allegedly caused to the applicants due to the inadequate supervision by the ECB of Trapeza tis Ellados (National Bank of Greece) which, for its part, inadequately supervised Αchaiki Syneteristiki Τrapeza Syn. PE (the Achaiki Cooperative Bank, Greece), in which the applicants hold shares.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the action.
90

Furthermore, it is true that, under Article 43(5) and (6) of Regulation No 1107/2009, the Member States are to decide on the renewal of the authorisation of a plant protection product at the latest 12 months after the renewal of the approval of the active substance contained in the phytopharmaceutical product and may extend the authorisation for the period necessary to complete the examination and adopt a decision on its renewal where, for reasons beyond the control of the holder of the authorisation, no decision is taken on the renewal of the authorisation before its expiry.
55

In that regard, first, it should be recalled that Article 12 of Implementing Regulation No 725/2011 provides as follows: ‘1. The Commission shall ensure that the certifications and the CO2 savings attributed to individual vehicles are verified on an ad hoc basis. Where it finds that there is a difference between the certified CO2 savings and the savings it has verified using the relevant testing methodology or methodologies, the Commission shall notify the manufacturer of its findings. The Commission may also, where it finds or is informed of deviations or inconsistencies in the testing methodology or in the innovative technology in comparison to the information it had received as part of the application for the approval of the innovative technology as an eco-innovation, notify this to the manufacturer. The manufacturer may within 60 days of receipt of the notification provide the Commission with evidence demonstrating the accuracy of the certified CO2 savings. At the request of the Commission, the report on the interaction of different eco-innovations referred to in Article 7(3) shall be provided. 2. Where the evidence referred to in paragraph 1 is not provided within the indicated time period, or it finds that the evidence provided is not satisfactory, the Commission may decide not to take the certified CO2 savings into account for the calculation of the average specific emissions of that manufacturer for the following calendar year. 3. A manufacturer for which the certified CO2 savings are no longer taken into account may apply for a new certification of the vehicles concerned in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 11, or may, where appropriate, make a request for an amendment of the approval decision in accordance with Article 12a, which shall be supported by such evidence that is required to confirm the appropriateness of the testing methodology and the level of CO2 savings achieved by the innovative technology.’
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Makhlouf v Council

(Case T‑57/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.