ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T‑902/16)

(Actions for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Grey cement market in Croatia — Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Meaning—Measures producing binding legal effects—Preparatory measures—Not included—Commission decision to initiate in-depth examination of a concentration operation (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 6(1)(c)) (see paras 14-22, 25)

2. Action for annulment—Actionable measures—Measures producing binding legal effects—Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure—Commission decision declaring a notified concentration compatible with the internal market—Decision not in principle adversely affecting the applicant—Obligation of the General Court to examine the possible binding legal effects (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate the in-depth examination phase, pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, aimed at assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of the control of Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement KG through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Officials – Staff Regulations – Regulation amending the Staff Regulations – Procedure for adoption – Application of the concertation procedure – Refusal of the Parliament to participate in the said procedure – Infringement of the right to information and worker consultation – None

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 27; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 10b)

(see paras 45-50)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2018 –

Credito Fondiario v SRB

(Case T‑661/16)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 36, 42-44, 49)

2. Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — Plea inadmissible (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 51)

Re:

Application based, first, on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant, and, second, on Article 277 TFEU.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Credito Fondiario SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).
9

The EU-Turkey statement provided that, while ‘reconfirm[ing] their commitment to the implementation of their joint action plan activated on 29 November 2015, … [the Republic of] Turkey and the [European Union] recognise[d] that further, swift and determined efforts [were] needed’. That statement continued in the following terms: ‘In order to break the business model of the smugglers and to offer migrants an alternative to putting their lives at risk, the EU and [the Republic of] Turkey today decided to end the irregular migration from Turkey to the [European Union]. In order to achieve this goal, they agreed on the following additional action points: (1) All new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey. This will take place in full accordance with [European Union] and international law, thus excluding any kind of collective expulsion. All migrants will be protected in accordance with the relevant international standards and in respect of the principle of non-refoulement. It will be a temporary and extraordinary measure which is necessary to end the human suffering and restore public order. Migrants arriving in the Greek islands will be duly registered and any application for asylum will be processed individually by the Greek authorities in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive, in cooperation with UNHCR [the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees]. Migrants not applying for asylum or whose application has been found unfounded or inadmissible in accordance with the said directive will be returned to Turkey. [The Republic of] Turkey and [the Hellenic Republic], assisted by [European Union] institutions and agencies, will take the necessary steps and agree any necessary bilateral arrangements, including the presence of Turkish officials on Greek islands and Greek officials in Turkey as from 20 March 2016, to ensure liaison and thereby facilitate the smooth functioning of these arrangements. The costs of the return operations of irregular migrants will be covered by the EU. (2) For every Syrian being returned to Turkey from Greek islands, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the [European Union] taking into account the UN Vulnerability Criteria. A mechanism will be established, with the assistance of the Commission, [European Union] agencies and other Member States, as well as the UNHCR, to ensure that this principle will be implemented as from the same day the returns start. Priority will be given to migrants who have not previously entered or tried to enter the [European Union] irregularly. On the EU side, resettlement under this mechanism will take place, in the first instance, by honouring the commitments taken by Member States in the conclusions of Representatives of the Governments of Member States meeting within the Council on 20 July 2015, of which 18000 places for resettlement remain. Any further need for resettlement will be carried out through a similar voluntary arrangement up to a limit of an additional 54000 persons. …’
Actions brought by officials – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action for annulment of a decision implementing the replacement of travelling time by the allocation of a reduced number of days of home leave – Compulsory retirement of the applicant during the proceedings – Interest in bringing proceedings retained

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91, and Annex V, Art. 7)

(see paras 27-29)
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 8-11)
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 18-20)
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 11-14)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2018 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission

(Case T‑361/17)

(Action for annulment — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for car battery recycling — Decision correcting a decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and imposing fines — Period within which an action must be brought — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Time-limits—Mandatory—Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 31, 37)

2. Actions for annulment—Time-limits—Mandatory—Point from which time starts to run—Notification—Purely formal errors irrelevant (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final of 8 February 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU (Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling), as corrected by Commission Decision C(2017) 2223 final of 6 April 2017, and, second, a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Национальный Продукт)

(Case T‑246/17)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Национальный Продукт — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Article 177(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(1)(d) and (e))

(see paras 5-9)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2017 (Case R 1017/2016–1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Национальный Продукт as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 June 2018 –

TL v EDPS

(Case T‑452/17)

(Actions for annulment — Protection of personal data — Public nature of the case-law of the General Court — Request for anonymisation and removal from the Internet of a judgment of the General Court — Act not open to challenge — Confirmatory act — No new and substantial facts — Manifest inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act—Inadmissibility—Concept of confirmatory decision—Re-examination of an earlier decision in reply to a claim of new and substantial facts—Not included—Concept of new and substantial facts—Scope

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 24-30)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 16 May 2017 rejecting the request seeking, in essence, (i) a new analysis of the question of its jurisdiction in relation to the dissemination on the Internet of the name of a party to proceedings by the Court of Justice of the European Union and (ii) an order that the judgment in [confidential] be anonymised.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2018 –

Abel and Others v Commission

(Case T‑197/17)

(Non-contractual liability — Environment — Adoption by the Commission of a regulation concerning polluting emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles — Claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicants — Harm not real and certain — Situation capable of materially affecting any person — Harm not capable of being compensated — Application for an injunction)

1. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Injury—Causal link—Cumulative conditions—Obligation on the court to examine in a given order—None (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 25)

2. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Injury—Causal link—One of the conditions not satisfied—Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 26, 33, 36, 41)

3. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Actual and certain damage—Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 27)

4. Non-contractual liability—Injury—Damage for which compensation is available (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 34, 35)

5. Actions for damages—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—EU to be ordered to pay compensation for damage in accordance with general principles common to the laws of the Member States on non-contractual liability—Reparation in kind in the form of an injunction or prohibition (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 38, 39)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm suffered by the applicants following the adoption of Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6) (OJ 2016 L 109, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
The assessment of the serious nature of such damage is carried out in the light of, inter alia, the size and turnover of the undertaking and the characteristics of the group to which it belongs. In that connection, on the one hand, with regard to a loss corresponding to less than 10% of turnover of an undertaking active in highly regulated markets, the financial difficulties which that undertaking risked suffering does not appear to be such as to threaten its very existence and, on the other, regarding a loss representing almost two-thirds of the turnover of that undertaking, while acknowledging that the financial difficulties it underwent could have been such as to threaten its very existence, in a highly regulated sector where major investment is often required and the competent authorities may be led to intervene when public health risks become apparent, for reasons which cannot always be foreseen by the undertaking concerned, it is for that undertaking, if it is not to bear itself the loss resulting from such intervention, to protect itself against its consequences by adopting an appropriate policy.

However, it was accepted, when evaluating the seriousness of the damage, the judge hearing the application for interim measures cannot confine himself to having recourse, in a mechanical and rigid manner, solely to the relevant turnover, but must also examine the circumstances of each case and bring them into relation, when taking his decision, with the harm occasioned in terms of turnover.

(see paras 33, 34, 39)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 20 September 2018 –

RZ v EESC and Committee of the Regions

(Case T‑192/17)

(Civil service — Officials — [confidential] ( 1 ) — Action for annulment and damages — No act adversely affecting an official)

1. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Measure of internal organisation of departments — Not included — Act affecting administrative and working organisation — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 51, 55-59)

2. 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 60, 61)

Re:

Application under Article 270 essentially seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 11 May 2016 by which the Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions [confidential], a joint service between the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic Social Committee (EESC), [confidential] and second, compensation for the harm the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. RZ is ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) Confidential information redacted.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 February 2019 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB

(Case T‑768/17)

(Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Unlawful acts allegedly committed by certain Portuguese credit institutions — Implied rejection of the request to take action made to the ECB — Manifest inadmissibility in part — Manifest lack of jurisdiction in part — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law)

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (see para. 21)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution (Art. 340 TFEU) (see para. 30)

3. Judicial proceedings — Actions for annulment or for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Not permissible (Arts 263 and 265 TFEU) (see para. 36)

4. Judicial proceedings — Actions for annulment or for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to a Member State — Not permissible (see para. 37)

5. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Reference to the Court — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national courts — Direct application by the parties to a dispute before the national courts — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 39)

6. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Conditions — Clear and express request (Art. 265, 2nd para., TFEU) (see paras 43, 44)

7. Judicial proceedings — Action brought by a natural or legal person against other natural or legal persons or seeking annulment of a purely national decision — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (see para. 50)

8. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Silence or inaction of an institution — Assimilation to an implied decision of refusal — Not included — Limits (see para. 53)

9. European Union — Conferred powers — Internal and external competences — Compliance with the principle of conferral (Art. 13(2) TEU) (see para. 57)

Re

First, application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the ECB unlawfully failed to take action against a Portuguese credit institution in the context of preventing the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take action and, thirdly, application for compensation under Article 268 TFEU in respect of the loss and harm which the applicants allegedly sustained as a result of that failure to take action.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 November 2018 –

VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg v SRB

(Case T‑42/17)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism of credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2016 ex-ante contribution — Period for bringing an action — Out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known — Duty to act within a reasonable time — Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 35, 44-46, 51)

2. Acts of the institutions — General obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits — None (Arts 263, fourth and sixth para. TFEU and 275, second para. TFEU) (see para. 41)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, second, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), to the extent that they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. VR-Bank Rhein-Sieg eG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB).
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 –

Liaño Reig v SRB

(Case T‑557/17)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Compensation claim — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution procedure — Resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Purpose — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Application for annulment of a resolution decision of the Single Resolution Board — Inseparability of the decision to convert capital instruments from the resolution decision — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014) (see paras 25, 26, 35, 36, 52)

2. Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Resolution proceedings — Write-down and conversion of capital instruments — Principle of equal treatment of creditors in the same category — Scope (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Arts 15(1)(f) and 21) (see paras 43-46)

3. EU law — Principles — Equal treatment — Concept (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21) (see para. 47)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Article 6(1)(d) of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA, in so far as it makes provision for the conversion of Tier 2 capital instruments identified by the International Securities Identification Number (ISIN) XS 0550098569 into new shares in Banco Popular Español, and the provisional valuation carried out by the independent expert and the provisional valuation carried out by the SRB, and secondly, an application based on Article 266 TFEU seeking compensation, following on from the annulment, for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of that conversion.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to for leave to intervene submitted by Banco Santander SA, the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission.

3. Ms Carmen Liaño Reig shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB), with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.