ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 – UCAPT v Council

(Case T-96/09)

Action for annulment – Common agricultural policy – Support schemes for farmers – Production aid for tobacco – Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 – Not of individual concern – Inadmissible

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision – Conditions – Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy – Action brought by the Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France – Not of individual concern – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 73/2009) (see paras 29-33, 36, 40-43, 45)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

–

Pleas in law not set out in the application

–

Reference to the whole of the annexes

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 5-7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 1112/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Strålfors AB is ordered to bear its own costs.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

28 April 2010

European Parliament

v

U

‛Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Decision to dismiss — Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — No need to adjudicate’

Application:

to suspend the application of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-511 and II-A-1-2771.

Held:

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures made by the European Parliament. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2))

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

28 April 2010

European Parliament

v

U

‛Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Decision to dismiss — Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — No need to adjudicate’

Application:

to suspend the application of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-511 and II-A-1-2771.

Held:

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures made by the European Parliament. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2))
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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 9)

2. Applications for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-11, 19)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – 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 13-19)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of execution of a debit note issued by the Commission on 22 July 2010 for the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 415.20 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

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, 37-38, 44)

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 40-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/426/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xGA21 (SYN-BTØ11-1xMON‑ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 36).

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 20-21, 25-26

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTIONS against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2010 (Case R 1134/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign REFLUXCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑139/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1432/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign ANEURYSMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑280/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1433/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign APPETITECONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑281/10); of 8 June 2010 (Case R 1434/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign STOMACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑282/10); of 17 June 2010 (Case R 1435/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign BMICONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑283/10); of 3 June 2010 (Case R 1438/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign IMPLANTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑284/10); of 29 April 2010 (Case R 1444/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign CHEMOCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑285/10); of 29 June 2010 (Case R 1436/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign OVUMCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑349/10); of 2 July 2010 (Case R 1437/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign HEARTCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑350/10); of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1439/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign VESICACONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑351/10); and of 28 July 2010 (Case R 1443/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign RECTALCONTROL as a Community trade mark (Case T‑352/10).

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

1. Cases T‑139/10, T‑280/10 to T‑285/10 and T‑349/10 to T‑352/10 are joined for the purposes of the present order.

2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

3. Milux Holding SA is ordered to pay the costs.
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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Risk of insolvency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-18)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Whether account to be taken of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Prestressing steel) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

–

Pleas in law not set out in the application

–

Reference to elements in an annex

–

Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20, 27, 36-39

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Conditions relating to a signatory

–

Third party capacity in relation to the parties

–

Charity represented by one of its trustees

–

Inadmissibility

–

Trustee being neither an employee nor a director entrusted with the daily management of the association

–

No effect (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 15-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

2. ClientEarth is ordered to bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden are ordered to bear their own respective 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 — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection — (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-24, 26, 38)

2. 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 28-31, 36-37, 40)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Assessment at the time the action brought (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 35)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Measure containing implementation measures at national level — Need to show that persons individually affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 42-45)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award procedure for a public works contract, not to accept a tender — Account taken, by way of reasoning, of the replies of an institution to the requests of a discarded tenderer — Conditions — No substitution of a new statement of reasons for the initial statement of reasons — Assessment of the information available to the applicant at the time the action was brought (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see para. 27)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — No arguments in support of the claim — Inadmissible (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2) (see paras 34, 49-51)

3. Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Plea based on matters revealed during the proceedings — Scope — Plea based on matters known and alleged from the bringing of the action — Exclusion — Amplification of an existing plea — Exclusion — Inadmissibility of pleas not meeting the characteristics of a new plea (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 48(2)) (see paras 34-36, 40, 41)

4. Actions for annulment — Subject matter — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Decision, in the award procedure for a public works contract, not to accept a tender — Pleas relating to an error or other illegality affecting just one of those pillars — Plea not entailing the annulment of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002) (see paras 44, 45)

5. Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Unlimited jurisdiction — Direction issued to an institution to repair the alleged damage — Not permissible (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 58)

6. 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 — Lack of precision as to the damage suffered — Inadmissible (Art. 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 59, 60)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2010 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure ISM/2010/C05/004/0C concerning a multiple framework agreement for works to construct, restructure and maintain buildings and infrastructure at the Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site, of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and of the contract notice and, second, an application for damages.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Castiglioni Srl is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act

—

Natural or legal persons

—

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

—

Commission not terminating a formal investigation procedure on aid

—

Right of a competitor undertaking to bring an action

—

Condition

—

Market position significantly affected (Art. 88(2) EC; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 34, 35, 42-44, 47-50, 55, 59, 60

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period, in the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, initiated on 12 September 2007, concerning State aid granted by the German authorities to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. UPS Europe NV/SA and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. Deutsche Post AG is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑114/10)

(Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction in financial aid — Programme Interreg II/C programme ‘Rhine-Meuse flood’ — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

1. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Infringement of essential procedural requirements—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Condition—Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 67, 68)

2. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 75, 78)

Application for

ACTION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008).

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008) is annulled insofar as it concerns the Federal Republic of Germany.

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action brought by a European economic interest grouping — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Action brought by a European economic interest group representing companies producing and importing that substance — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 1(3), 7, 33, 34(a), 57(a) and (b), and 59, and Annex II, Section 15) (see paras 32, 35, 37-39, 50-53, 56-60)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

3. SNF is ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

4. The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.