ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2019 –

ITSA v Commission

(Case T‑396/18)

(Action for annulment — Approximation of laws — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products and related product — Establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products — Delegated Regulation and implementing acts — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — General measure providing the basis of the contested decision — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 39)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.1), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p.7), and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products (OJ 2018 L 96, p 57).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union.

3. International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –

WV v EEAS

(Case T‑388/18)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection of request — Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations — Out of time — Excusable error — Inadmissible)

Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Implied decision rejecting a request for assistance — Complaint lodged out of time — Excusable error — Limits — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91)

(see paras 81, 82, 84, 89, 93, 94)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment, first, of an implied decision of the EEAS, alleged to have been made on 4 September 2017, rejecting the request for assistance lodged by the applicant and, second, the EEAS’ decision of 28 March 2018 dismissing the applicant’s complaint of 29 November 2017 against the implied rejection.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 –

Durand and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑702/18)

(Actions for failure to act and for annulment — Agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Animal welfare — Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee — Defined position of the Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Informative act — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Concept — Measure not considered satisfactory — Decision of the Parliament to entrust the task of preparing an implementation report to a committee — Decision involving the rejection of a request to set up an inquiry committee — Precluded (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 21-23, 29, 30)

2. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-35)

Re:

Action, principally, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament, by decision taken by the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament, unlawfully failed to act on a request of 17 July 2018 seeking the setting up of an inquiry committee and, in the alternative, seeking the annulment, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Parliament of 21 September 2018.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
23

In response to the ECB’s first plea of inadmissibility, the applicant puts forward various arguments to support the claim that the contested acts changed its legal situation. In the first place, it argues that those acts constitute formal determinations of non-compliance with regulatory requirements, which must be open to judicial review. In the second place, the contested acts constitute formal negative assessments of each of the banks that must be open to judicial review. In the third place, the contested acts expose the banks to resolution action which would not otherwise be possible. The binding nature of the assessments on the SRB — which, according to the applicant, the ECB appears to accept — means that each bank cannot avoid resolution measures on the grounds that it is not failing or likely to fail even in circumstances where the SRB agrees that that is not the case. In the fourth place, the contested acts result in a substantial transfer of responsibility to the SRB, which alters the legal position of the relevant institution. In the fifth place, the contested acts have resulted in a distinct change in the banks’ legal status, which must be open to judicial review. Finally, in the sixth place, the publication of the contested acts led to the closure of the banks and therefore constituted an interference with the rights of each of the banks and their shareholders.
19

However, the fact that a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal has lost the opportunity to exercise, or has waived the exercise of, strengthened procedural rights in accordance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure does not mean that it may not be granted leave to intervene under the combined provisions of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure in so far as that party establishes an interest in the result of the case. It cannot be concluded that, in proceedings relating to intellectual property rights, being a party to the proceedings before EUIPO — and the concomitant possibility of benefiting from a procedural position equivalent to that of the main parties under Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure — excludes the opportunity to intervene in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure, if the party concerned has not been granted leave to intervene in accordance with Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure due to the expiry of the time limit referred to in Article 179. In that regard, it should be noted that the procedural rights which an intervener has under Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure are much more limited than those provided for in Article 173(3) thereof. Since these are therefore two different intervention regimes, the application of Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure to the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is compatible with the specific features of proceedings relating to intellectual property rights and does not constitute a circumvention of the time limit set out in Article 179 of the Rules of Procedure.
‘Thirdly, it should be noted, as observed by the ECB, that the FSA’s findings regarding breaches, which have not been properly challenged by the second applicant, had to be treated by the ECB as established facts and as not requiring, for that reason, a review by the ECB. Thus, the ECB rightly confined itself to verifying whether those breaches did indeed constitute grounds justifying the withdrawal of authorisation. That examination was carried out in paragraphs 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 of the decision of 17 July 2018.’
Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 26, 33, 34, 36)
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 September 2019 –

Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T‑566/19 R)

(Application for interim measures — State aid — Extension of time limit — No interest)

1. Application for interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 14-17)

2. Application for interim relief — Interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought — Application for annulment of a Commission decision setting a time limit for the submission of observations by the applicant — Observations submitted within the time limit set — No interest — Inadmissibility (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 20-26)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the formal investigation procedure in State aid case SA.39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) — Denmark — Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project (OJ 2019 C 226, p. 5).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 11-14)
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 February 2020 –

Gerber v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑326/19 R)

(Interim measures — EU customs territory — Regulation (EU) 2019/474 — Directive (EU) 2019/475 — Inclusion of the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility)

1. Application for interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 11, 13, 14)

2. Application for interim relief — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1)) (see paras 17-19)

3. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Person individually affected by a measure general in character — Condition — Differentiation of a person in a manner analogous to that of an addressee — None — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para. and 277 TFEU) (see paras 21-24, 35, 38)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 278 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation, first, of Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 38), and, secondly, of Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is refused.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 12 December 2019 –

KF v SatCen

(Case T‑619/19 R)

(Decision to launch administrative investigation — Application for suspension of a decision — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility — No urgency)

1. Interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 17-20)

2. Interim relief — Admissibility criteria — Admissibility of main application — Irrelevance — Limits (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 25)

3. Interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim relief — Measure not producing binding legal effects — Measure not capable of being the subject matter of an action for annulment — Inadmissibility of the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1)) (see paras 28, 29, 30, 32)

4. Interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Harm resulting from damage to reputation — Harm having already arisen at the time of the adoption of the decision by the court hearing the application for interim relief — No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 33, 37-44)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to reopen an administrative investigation against KF.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim relief – 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 – Balancing of all the interests involved

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

(see paras 14-17)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 –

SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend)

(Case T‑307/19)

(Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Innerbarend — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

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 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 13)

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 — Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15)

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 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18, 24, 27, 31)

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 Innerbarend (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 28, 29, 34, 37, 40)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions of national authorities not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 32)

6. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 33)

7. 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 — Definition — Sign that is descriptive of a characteristic of a component in a product — Included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 (Case R 2180/2018-4) relating to an application for registration of the word sign Innerbarend as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2020 –

Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T‑842/19)

(Action for annulment – Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to suspend the appeal proceedings pending a definitive decision of the General Court in the case which is likely to influence the pending case – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(1)) (see paras 25, 26, 28)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1010/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 November 2021 –

ZU v EEAS

(Case T‑689/19)

(Action for annulment and for damages – Civil service – Officials – Commission staff serving in the EEAS – Request for reimbursement of mission expenses – Request for assistance – Rejection – Competence of the author of the act – Delegation of powers – Pre-litigation procedure – Designation of the defendant – Partial inadmissibility – Principle of sound financial management – Misuse of powers – Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings – Absolute bar to proceeding – To be considered of the Court’s own motion – Decision taken by way of reasoned order (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 126 and 129) (see paras 21, 22)

2. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision without confirmatory effect (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 28, 29, 47)

3. Officials – Appointing Authority – Powers – Official of the Commission assigned in that capacity to the European External Action Service (EEAS) – Submission, by the person concerned, of requests for reimbursement of expenses and for assistance – Division of competences between the appointing authority of the Commission and that of the EEAS (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 1b(a), 2(1) and 24; Council Decision 2010/427, Art. 6(5)) (see paras 31-44)

4. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Lack of competence of the author of the contested act – Ground involving a question of public policy (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90) (see para. 45)

5. Actions brought by officials – Claim for compensation for damage caused by conduct that does not constitute a decision – No pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 108-110)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EEAS of 30 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests for the reimbursement of mission costs and for the assistance provided for in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 28 June 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against the decision of the EEAS referred to above and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by him.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 September 2020 –

ADESO v Commission

(Case T‑529/19)

(Action for annulment – Grant contracts relating to the projects ‘Your Environment is Your Life’ and ‘Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II’ – Non-eligible costs – Debit notes – Confirmation letter – Challengeable act – Contractual nature of the dispute – Act not open to challenge – Act forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is inseparable – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Annulment of a confirmation letter from the Commission – Letter confirming the recovery of sums indicated on debit notes and adopting a position on the validity of audit and recovery procedures – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility

(Arts 263, 272, 274, 288 and 299 TFEU)

(see paras 18-23, 32, 33, 36, 37, 44, 46, 49, 54, 57-60)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of a Commission decision allegedly contained in a letter dated 10 May 2019 concerning the recovery of certain sums paid under grant contracts relating to the projects ‘Your Environment is Your Life’ (FED/2013/313-770) and ‘Social Safety Net for Poor and Vulnerable Households in Northern Regions of Somalia/Somaliland Phase II’ (FED/2013/316-291).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.