ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 April 2018 –

Winkler v Commission

(Case T‑916/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal concerning additional pensionable years — Measure not open to challenge — Act not having an adverse effect — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Action against a decision rejecting a complaint—Admissibility—Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint—Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision—None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Meaning—Proposal concerning additional pensionable years with a view to a transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the EU—Not included (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1) and Annex VIII, Art. 11(2)) (see para. 24)

3. Actions brought by officials—Subject-matter—Directions to the administration—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 31)

4. Actions brought by officials—Compensation action brought without pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 34-37)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the Commission note of 20 April 2016 on a proposal concerning the additional pensionable years to be taken into consideration in the European Union pension scheme, following a request for transfer of pension rights acquired by the applicant before entering the service of the Union and, secondly, to obtain compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful acts allegedly committed by the Commission when processing that request for transfer.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2018 –

GM and Others v Commission

(Case T‑539/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 — Types of posts — Transitional measures relating to classification in the types of posts — Article 31 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Assistants in transition — Promotion pursuant to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations authorised only within the career streams corresponding to the type of post held — Exclusion of AST 9 officials from the promotion procedure — No act having an adverse effect — Confirmatory measure — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure — Objection of inadmissibility — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure)

1. Actions brought by officials — Admissibility criteria — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 270 TFEU) (see para. 33)

2. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Definition — Purely confirmatory act — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 34-38)

3. Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 39)

4. Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Application for annulment of an individual act adversely affecting an official — Union judicature’s lack of jurisdiction to declare a provision of general application unlawful in the operative part of its judgments (Arts 263 and 277 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013, Art. 45 and Annex I) (see paras 41-44)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the Commission by which the appointing authority of that institution classified the applicants as holding the post of ‘Assistant in transition’, resulting in the loss, with effect from 1 January 2014, of their eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs incurred by GM, GN, GO and GP.

3. GM, GN, GO and GP shall bear half of their own costs.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 November 2018 –

OT v Commission

(Case T‑552/16)

(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Opinion of the CCA — Non-challengeable act — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Effect — Disputed measure referred to the Court — Exception — Decision not confirmatory in character — Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 34, 35)

2. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Preparatory act — Advice of a consultative body in an appointment procedure — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 42-47, 55)

3. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 89-91)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of ‘the [d]ecision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA) and, secondly, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm the applicant has allegedly suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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 13-16)
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Modification or setting aside—Condition—Application for modification brought after dismissal of the initial application—Inadmissibility

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 159)

(see paras 7-11)
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 7-10)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 13 November 2017 — Romania v Commission

(Case T‑391/17 R)

(Application for interim measures — Institutional law — European citizens’ initiative — Protection of national and linguistic minorities and enhancement of cultural and linguistic diversity in the Union — Principle of conferral — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

1. 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 16, 18, 19)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Purely hypothetical damage based on the happening of future and uncertain events—Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

3. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 25)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Harm that can be pleaded by a Member State—Damage concerning undertakings and not a whole sector of the national economy—Not included (Arts 256 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 26)

5. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Serious and irreparable damage—Damage consisting of the resulting administrative burden on a Member State to register a European citizens’ initiative—Failure to demonstrate a risk of serious harm—No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, Art. 8(2) and Annex VI) (see paras 32, 36-38)

6. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Assessment of the duty to state reasons by reference to the circumstances of the case (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

7. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Commission decision to register a European citizens’ initiative—Generic nature of the statement of reasons as to the Commission’s legislative powers with regard to the proposed measures—Lawfulness (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, Art. 10(1)(c)) (see paras 55, 56)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision (EU) No 2017/652 of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (OJ 2017 L 92, p. 100).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2018 –

Kerstens v Commission

(Case T‑757/17)

(Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Enforcement of a judgment delivered by the General Court on appeal — Withdrawal of the decision imposing a reprimand — Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction — Claim for annulment — Act not adversely affecting an official — Claim for damages — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Preparatory act — Reopening of the disciplinary proceedings which led to the cancelled sanction by the EU courts due to a procedural defect — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 24-28, 32-34)

2. Actions brought by officials — Actions for damages — Pre-litigation procedure — Different depending on whether there is an act having adverse effect (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 37-40)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of two Commission memoranda of 27 March and 6 April 2017 and (ii) compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the outcome and duration of the disciplinary proceedings CMS 15/017 and CMS 12/063.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 May 2018 –

Commune de Fessenheim and Others v Commission

(Case T‑726/17)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Letter sent by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant — Implied refusal of access — Time limit for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Time-limits—Mandatory—Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion—Undertakings made by an institution—Irrelevant (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 20, 28)

2. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Meaning—Measures producing binding legal effects—Silence or inaction of an institution—Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal—Not included—Limits—Lack of a response to a request confirming access to documents within the prescribed period (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 21, 22)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the implied decision of 10 August 2017, by which the Commission refused to grant the applicants access to the letter sent on 22 March 2017 by the Commission to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the Électricité de France (EDF) Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.

3. The Commune de Fessenheim, the Communauté de communes Pays Rhin-Brisach, the Conseil départemental du Haut-Rhin and the Conseil régional Grand Est Alsace Champagne-Ardenne Lorraine shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 24 September 2018 –

Estampaciones Rubí v Commission

(Case T‑775/17)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act — State aid — State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market — Implementation of the decision — Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients — Commission’s failure to adopt a position — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Informal letter from the Commission responding to an informal initiative from a Member State — Not included (Art. 93 EC; Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 2(1) and (2)) (see paras 57, 58, 60-65, 79-81, 85-87, 95-98, 100)

2. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Commission omission to adopt a measure clarifying the nature of the informal messages — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 104-107, 112-114)

Re:

Principally, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decisions of the Commission contained in the documents of 4 December 2012 and 26 March 2013, entitled ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 — Informal message in response to the letter of 7 November (Álava)’ and ‘Basque tax disputes — Proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations 2007/2215 (Álava) — Informal message in response to the letters sent on 22 February and 4 and 12 March 2013 (Álava)’ and, in the alternative, application on the basis of Article 265 TFEU seeking a finding that the Commission unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s request set out in its letter of 28 July 2017.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in its entirety as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2018 –

Správa železniční dopravní cesty v Commission and INEA

(Case T‑815/17)

(Action for annulment — Financial assistance — Project of common interest in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks — Preliminary planning services for the new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line — Decision on eligible costs — Incorrect identification of the defendant — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of an executive agency of the European Union not to regard as eligible certain costs incurred in undertaking a project benefiting from European Union financial aid — Organisation entrusted with implementing the project directly affected — None (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-29, 40)

2. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Limits — Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 38)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of INEA’s letter of 11 October 2017 relating to the final financial statement of the eligibility of the sums claimed from the EU financial assistance granted to the project of common interest ‘Services relating to the preliminary planning of a new Dresden-Prague high-speed rail line’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.

3. Správa železniční dopravní cesty, státní organizace, shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 December 2018 –

Classic Media v EUIPO — Pirelli Tyre (CLASSIC DRIVER)

(Case T‑811/17)

(EU Trade Mark — Opposition Proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CLASSIC DRIVER — Earlier EU word mark DRIVER — Relative Ground for Refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 19-21)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Word marks CLASSIC DRIVER and DRIVER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 28, 31-33)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 24)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Weak distinctive character of the earlier mark — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 30)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2017 (Case R 59/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Pirelli Tyre and Classic Media.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
The action for annulment of a decision of the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) is manifestly inadmissible as the applicant chose to bring, against that decision, an administrative appeal under Article 22 of Regulation No 58/2003 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes. As the applicant thus opted for the administrative remedy which resulted in the adoption of a decision by the Commission, which is the authority which reviews the legality of the ERCEA’s acts, he can no longer challenge the ERCEA’s decision by a judicial remedy under Article 263 TFEU.

An application for annulment must, in principle, be made against the author of the contested measure. That is, in particular, the case where an act cannot be imputed to an EU institution, body, office or agency other than that from which that act emanates. In addition, the mistaken designation in the application of a defendant other than the body which adopted the contested measure does not render the application inadmissible if the application contains information which makes it possible to identify unambiguously the party against whom it is made, such as the designation of the contested measure and the body responsible for it. In such a case, the defendant must be considered to be the body responsible for the contested measure, even if not referred to in the introduction to the application. However, that situation must be distinguished from the case in which the applicant persists in the designation of the defendant referred to in the introduction to the application, in full awareness of the fact that that defendant is not the author of the contested measure. In the latter case, the Court must treat as defendant the party designated in the application and, where appropriate, draw the necessary consequences of that designation in so far as concerns the admissibility of the action.

(see paras 37, 38)
53

Next, although the lack of information concerning the substitution costs generated by the contractual obligations referred to by the applicant does not allow the increase in the alleged harm to be assessed, the existence of the contracts at issue nevertheless suggests that, to a certain extent, the applicant has a means of reducing the scale of that harm and preserving the market share that it fears it will lose on the markets for similar products in the Member States concerned and outside the European Union. In that respect, it is worth noting that the contracts in question are, as the applicant points out, multi-year contracts and, consequently, seem to guarantee it a certain degree of stability as to its competitive position with its customers, save for the possibility of the other parties to those contracts incurring liability as a result of a breach of their obligations under the contracts. In that context, it may be observed that, in the light of the average duration of proceedings before the General Court, the judgment 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). Consequently, depending on the term of those contracts, the applicant may potentially know where it stands on the lawfulness of the contested decision before their expiry.