ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2007 – Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission

(Case T-454/05)

Plant protection products – Active substance procymidone – Directive 91/414/EEC – Action for annulment – Action for failure to act – No need to adjudicate – Action for damages – Inadmissibility – Action manifestly unfounded

1. Actions for annulment – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community Courts (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 53)

2. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment and for failure to act (Arts 230 EC, 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 70-72)

3. Actions for damages – Commission taking a provisional position in the procedure for entering an active substance of a plant protection product in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 73, 77-81)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first and primarily, annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 concerning authorisation to place the active substance procymidone on the market pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230 p. 1); second, as an alternative to the claim for annulment, for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and its affiliates in a letter of 5 September 2005; and, third, for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission’s adoption of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 and, in the alternative, as a result of the Commission’s failure to adopt the measures requested in the letter of 5 September 2005.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions for annulment and failure to act.

2. The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and Philagro France SAS as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005.

3. The action for damages is dismissed as manifestly without foundation in law in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France as a result of the failure by the Commission to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and its affiliates in the letter of 5 September 2005.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 26 February 2007 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-205/05)

Actions for annulment – Arbitration clause – e-Content Programme – Termination of contract – Repayment – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see para. 38)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC) (see paras 39-56)

3. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Exclusion (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 57)

Re:

ACTION for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 16 May 2003 to terminate contract EDC-53007 EEBO/27873; secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 12 November 2004 to reimburse to the applicant an amount for the costs of labour not exceeding EUR 85 971; and thirdly, the Commission’s decision of 7 March 2005 to issue a debit note in the amount of EUR 59 485 in respect of the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 233 EC) (see paras 52-54, 57, 59)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 219/2006) (see paras 66, 69, 71, 77)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC, 235 EC, 241 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 81-83)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 of 8 February 2006 opening and providing for the administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the period 1 March to 31 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 22).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first subpara.) (see para 27)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 12(1)(h); Commission Regulation No 1831/94, Art. 5(2) and (7)) (see paras 34-37, 41, 43, 47)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 10 EC, 230, fourth para., EC and 234 EC) (see paras 45‑46)

4. 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 51-52, 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/07 – Redevelopment of Grande Porto/Sul – Subsistema de Gondomar (Portugal) by Commission Decision C (95) 3281 of 18 December 1995.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Admissibility of main application

–

Irrelevance

–

Limits (Art. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 50, 71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATIONS for suspension of operation of the acts of the EFSA of 28 July and 28 August 2006 concluding the evaluation of the active substances carbofuran, carbosulfan and benfuracarb for the purposes of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for the grant of other interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T‑311/06 R I, T‑311/06 R II, T‑312/06 R and T‑313/06 R for the purposes of this order;

2. Rejects the applications for interim measures;

3. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Commission Regulation No 451/2000, Art. 8(7); Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 43-44, 49-50)

2. Plea of illegality – Incidental nature – Main action inadmissible (Art. 241 EC) (see paras 71-72)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 77-79, 81-82)

4. Procedure – Measures of organisation of procedure – Request for production of documents (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 64(3)(d) and(4)) (see paras 86-88)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the opinion of EFSA of 28 July 2006 on the assessment of the active substance carbosulfan under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for the damage sustained.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders FMC Chemical SPRL, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the Commission each to bear their own costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v ECB

(Case T-279/06)

‛Public service contracts — Community public procurement procedure — Supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB — Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to other tenderers — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Ground for exclusion — Permit to be issued by a national authority — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible’

1. Community law — Principles — Right to a judicial remedy (Arts 230, first para., EC and 288 EC) (see paras 45-49)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 75, 85)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 98-99)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 31 July 2006 rejecting the tender made by the applicant in the negotiated procedure for the supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB and the decision to award the contract to other tenderers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 12(1)(h); Commission Regulation No 1831/94, Arts 5(2) and (7)) (see paras 37-52

)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 March 2007 – FMC Chemical and Others v EFSA

(Joined Cases T-311/06 R I, T-311/06 R II, T-312/06 R and T-313/06 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure –Directive 91/414/EEC – European Food Safety Authority – Inadmissibility

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits (Art. 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 50, 71)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for suspension of operation of the acts of the EFSA of 28 July and 28 August 2006 concluding the evaluation of the active substances carbofuran, carbosulfan and benfuracarb for the purposes of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant-protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for the grant of other interim measures.

Operative part

The Court:

Joins Cases T‑311/06 R I, T‑311/06 R II, T‑312/06 R and T‑313/06 R for the purposes of this order;

Rejects the applications for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 August 2006 – BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio and Others v Commission

(Case T-163/06 R)

Application for interim measures – Admissibility of main application – Admissibility of the application for interim measures

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Not relevant – Limits (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first subpara.) (see paras 14, 16)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1) and (2)(b), together with recitals 28 to 31 and 250 to 252, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 98, p. 3), in so far as they exempt children’s shoes from the anti-dumping measures imposed by the regulation in question.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 5 December 2007 – Kapman v OHIM (Representation of a saw blade in blue)

(Case T-127/06)

Community trade mark – Application for a Community figurative mark representing a saw blade in the colour blue – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24-25, 27, 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 303/2004-2), refusing registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative mark in the colour blue representing a saw blade.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2007 – Makhteshim-Agan Holding and Others v Commission

(Cases T-393/06 R I, T-393/06 R II and T-393/06 R III)

Applications for interim measures – Applications for interim measures and for suspension of operation – Directive 91/414/EEC – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1); Council Directive 91/414, Art. 8(2)) (see paras 39-49)

2. Actions for failure to act – Formal notice to the institution (Art. 232 EC) (see paras 53-59)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for suspension of operation of a decision alleged to be contained in a letter from the Commission dated 12 October 2006 concerning the evaluation of the active substance azinphos-methyl, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and for other interim measures.

Operative part

Cases T‑393/06 R I, T‑393/06 R II and T‑393/06 R III are joined for the purposes of the present order.

The applications for interim measures are dismissed.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 – Rath v OHIM – Grandel (Epican Forte)

(Case T-373/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community trade mark Epican Forte – Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community 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 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33, 65-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1069/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Matthias Rath Community trade mark sought: Word mark Epican Forte for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 – Application No 2525251 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word Mark EPIGRAN, initially registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5, currently also registered for goods in Class 3 (Community mark No 560292), the opposition being directed solely against registration in Class 5 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; partial rejection of the application for registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2008 – Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans v Commission

(Case T-358/06)

Action for annulment – Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC – Action brought by an undertaking referred to in the reasons for a decision not addressed to it – Lack of interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by an addressee of a statement of objections against the final decision of the Commission referring to it only in the grounds and not in the operative part – Inadmissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Statement of objections – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 23)

3. Competition – Community rules – Application by national courts – Assessment of an agreement or practice examined by the Commission or having already been the subject-matter of a Commission decision – Conditions (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 30-31)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/534/EC of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 – Bitumen (Netherlands)) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on Heijmans NV and Hejmans Infrastructur BV.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1) and (2)) (see paras 40-45)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of the decision of Eurofound concerning contract No 2007/S 13‑014125 entitled ‘Information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level’ until the Court of First Instance has given judgment in the main action.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
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 Dyckerhoff Polska sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks devoid of any distinctive character (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20-24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 May 2007 (Case R 669/2006-1), concerning registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a left pocket.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

2. Tom Tailor GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 230, para. 4, EC and 241 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 17-23, 26-27

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of the Commission Decision of 15 May 2007 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Italy for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 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), inasmuch as the Commission makes its decision not to raise objections with regard to that national allocation plan conditional on withdrawal of the authorisation for installation operators to retain part of the allowances allocated in the event of ‘closure due to a production rationalisation process’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders Buzzi Unichem SpA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 – Ristic and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/07 R)

Interim measures – Application for stay of execution – Directive 96/23/EC – Lack of urgency – Balance of interests

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42-43)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 48-50)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Meaning (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 72-74)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Commission Decision 2007/362/EC of 16 May 2007 amending Decision 2004/432/EC on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 18).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.