ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Division of jurisdiction between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 54, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 80)

Summary

The second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice gives no right of intervention to natural or legal persons in cases before the Court between Member States, on the one hand, and institutions of the Community, on the other hand. The only possibility for natural or legal persons to put forward their pleas in law and arguments in disputes which concern them is therefore to bring an action themselves, in cases in which they have standing to do so, before the competent court. It is in the interest of the proper administration of justice and of safeguarding the rights of the defence of individuals that the court with jurisdiction to hear and determine the action brought by a Member State should be able to take into consideration the various pleas in law and arguments of fact and law relied on by natural and legal persons in support of their applications for annulment of the same act. Accordingly, it is appropriate to decline jurisdiction in favour of the Court of Justice in order to enable the latter to give judgment on the application for annulment.

(see paras 9-10, 12)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9(1) and (3) and 11(2)) (see paras 22, 28, 44-45)

2. Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Directive 2003/87 – National allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) – NAP notification procedure (Arts 175 EC and 176 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9(3) and 11(1) and (2)) (see paras 32-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Cementownia ‘Odra’ S.A. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Directive 2006/92 establishing maximum levels for dichlorvos (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 91/414; Commission Directive 2006/92, Art. 2(b) and Annex II) (see paras 54-80

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending the annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos, ethion and folpet (OJ 2006 L 311, p. 31).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Denka International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 2 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON Földgáz Trade v Commission

(Case T-57/07)

‛Action for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market — Commitments — Commission letters regarding the commitments — Non-actionable measures — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from an institution — Letter limited to providing an interpretation of a legislative text — Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 30-51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decisions allegedly contained in the Commission’s letters of 19 December 2006 and 16 January 2007 concerning the commitments entered into by E.ON Ruhrgas International AG referred to in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3696 — E.ON/MOL).

Operative part

1. The action as dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Concept

–

Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 12(1)) (see paras 48-56, 64

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of a decision allegedly taken by the Commission and communicated to the applicant by email of the Irish Revenue Commissioners of 30 March 2007 concerning the classification of goods under a certain heading of the Combined Nomenclature.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. RSA Security Ireland Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 2007 – Icuna.Com v Parliament

(Case T-71/07 R)

Public procurement – Community tendering procedure – Procedure for interim relief – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-31)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Measures not prejudging the decision on the merits (Arts 233 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 46-49)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January 2007 annulling invitation to tender EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot No 2, pending the decision of the Court of First Instance in the main action.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 19 May 2008 – Transports Schiocchet – Excursions v Commission

(Case T-220/07)

Action for damages – Limitation period – Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Certain damage – Meaning – Imminent and foreseeable damage (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 30, 33)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Date to be taken into consideration – Whether conditions for non-contractual liability met (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see para. 32)

3. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for compensation in respect of damage for which the Community liable – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 38)

4. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see para. 39)

Re:

APPLICATION for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of various alleged illegal acts complained of against the Community institutions.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2007 – Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-367/07 R)

Application for interim relief – Directive 91/414/EEC – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 230 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1);Council Directive 91/414; Commission Decision 2007/437) (see paras 45-46, 48, 59-60, 64)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 86-89, 91, 101)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC of 19 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of haloxyfop-R in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 163, p. 22) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 30 October 2008 – France v Commission

(Case T-257/07 R II)

Application for interim measures – Health measures – Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 – Eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies – Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 – Application for suspension of operation – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of interests

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of all the interests involved – Suspension of operation of a regulation concerning the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies – Lawfulness (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Commission Regulation No 746/2008) (see paras 120, 124-126)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annexe VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11), in so far as it introduces, into Chapter A of Annex VII point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Suspends the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annexe VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies until judgment has been given in the main action in so far as it introduces, into Chapter A of Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001 point 2.3(b)(iii), point 2.3(d) and point 4;
ACTION for annulment of decision C(2006) 5008 of the Commission of 17 October 2006 concerning the reduction of the Cohesion Fund as regards certain projects relating to the factory for the incineration of solid urban waste of household origin in the Region of Porto.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2011 – Vtesse Networks v Commission

(Case T-54/07)

Application for annulment – State aid – Telecommunications – Tax on non-domestic property of undertakings in the United Kingdom – Decision finding that the measure at issue does not constitute aid – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Intervention – Extent of the intervener’s procedural rights linked to the date on which the application to intervene was made (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 116(6)) (see para. 51)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision closing a procedure on aid – Undertaking competing with the undertaking in receipt of the aid – Right to bring an action – Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 88-90, 92-93, 95, 98)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/951/EC of 12 October 2006 on the United Kingdom’s application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunications infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C 4/2005 (ex NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004)) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Vtesse Networks Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2008 – Gόrażdże Cement v Commission

(Case T-193/07)

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions – Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9(1) and (3) and 11(2)) (see paras 21, 27, 44-45)

2. Environment – Atmospheric pollution – Directive 2003/87 – National allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) – NAP notification procedure (Arts 175 EC and 176 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9(3) and 11(1) and (2)) (see paras 30-33, 38-40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
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

–

Directive 89/665 (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 232, third para., EC; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3) (see paras 9-17

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in that it failed, in relation to the conclusion of a public works contract between the town of Stolberg and Kaufland Stiftung & Co., and in relation to the award of a general commercial contract by Kaufland Stiftung & Co., to implement without delay the corrective mechanism provided for under Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC and to send the Federal Republic of Germany a notification under Article 3(2) of that directive.

Operative part

Operative part.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own 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 – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-37, 41, 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC) in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2009 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-300/08)

‛Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Article 63(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 65(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Act which upheld the applicant’s claims in their entirety — Inadmissibility’

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings — Persons whose claims not upheld by a decision (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(4)) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 May 2008 (Case R 889/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd and Tresplain Investments Ltd.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 241810 Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Tresplain Investments Ltd Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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

–

General reference to other documents not annexed to the application

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2004, notified to Mr Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos on 3 March 2008, reducing the amount of financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) in respect of a vocational training programme submitted by the Portuguese authorities in file No 89 0488 P1.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Mr Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos is ordered to pay the costs.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeal – Statement of pleas in law and legal arguments in the application – Confused and disorganised statement of arguments – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c))

2. Appeal – Pleas in law – Plea based on the taking into account of findings in a previous judgment not the subject of an application for revision – Res judicata – Rejection

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 44; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

1. Under Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court an appeal must contain the pleas in law and arguments on which the appellant relies. Those particulars must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the appeal, if necessary, without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for a plea to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the appeal itself. Otherwise, the Court will confine itself to considering the arguments which it has been able to understand.

(see para. 17)

See: T‑85/92 De Hoe v Commission [1993] ECR II‑523, para. 20; T‑110/98 RJB Mining v Commission [2000] ECR II‑2971, para. 23; T‑167/04 Asklepios Kliniken v Commission [2007] ECR II‑2379, paras 39 and 40

2. An appellant cannot complain that the Civil Service Tribunal has not reviewed the findings in a previous judgment of the Tribunal concerning him, or that it has failed to request new evidence from the other party, where that judgment has become res judicata in the absence of any application for revision as provided for in the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

The force of res judicata , which applies to issues of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by a decision of the courts, may be challenged only in the context of a revision procedure. Revision presupposes the discovery of facts which predate the delivery of the judgment, were unknown to the Court up to the point when it delivered the judgment, and would, if the Court had been able to take them into consideration, have been likely to lead it to adopt a different decision to the one adopted in the proceedings. Under the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the revision of a judgment of the General Court is opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of a new fact and recognising that it is of such a character as to lay the case open to revision, following an application for revision made by one of the parties for that purpose.

(see paras 32-34, 39)

See: C‑281/89 Italy v Commission [1991] ECR I‑347, para. 14; C‑130/91 REV II ISAE/VP and Interdata v Commission [1996] ECR I‑65, para. 6; C‑442/04 Spain v Council [2008] ECR I‑3517, para. 25; T‑91/96 REV Council v Hankart [1998] ECR-SC I‑A‑597 and II‑1809, para. 13
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 18‑23, 27‑30)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 32)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Action by an association of associations of fishing sector operators — Members of the association not themselves having locus standi — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 34, 35)