ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 –

Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission

(Case T‑306/19)

(Action for annulment – Agricultural policy – Organic production – Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 – Production and labelling of organic products – Organic products imported into the European Union – Certification of products by a control body – No interest in bringing proceedings – Lack of direct concern – Manifest inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Decision to withdraw the recognition of a control body issuing certificates of inspection authorising the placing on the EU market, as organic products, of products imported from third countries – Determination of whether that decision directly affects the legal situation of an undertaking supplied by suppliers certified by that body – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)

(see paras 25, 27, 45, 59, 60)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67), in so far as that provision, in conjunction with point 3 of Annex II to that implementing regulation, withdraws the recognition of Control Union Certifications as a competent body for carrying out controls and issuing certificates of inspection authorising the placing on the EU market, as organic products, of products imported from Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications for measures of organisation of procedure and for the examination of witnesses submitted by Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 October 2020 –

Ultrasun v EUIPO (ultrasun)

(Case T‑805/19)

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

1. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion – Registration of a new trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7 and 95(1)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the EUIPO’s own motion – Duty of care (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1)) (see para. 16)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign – Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 32, 46, 47)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Figurative mark ultrasun (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 33-35, 56-58)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 45, 55)

6. EU trade mark – Decisions of the Office – Principle of equal treatment – Principle of sound administration – EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice – Principle of legality – Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001) (see para. 61)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 531/2019-4), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign ultrasun as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2019 –

Intering and Others v Commission

(Case T‑525/19 RII)

(Interim measures — Programme entitled ‘EU Support to clean air in Kosovo’ — Tendering procedure EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK — Decision rejecting the suspension of operation of the decision to exclude an applicant from the further tendering procedure — New application for interim measures — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)

1. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Modification or setting aside — Condition — Change in circumstances — Meaning (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 159) (see paras 15-20)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of bringing a new application — Condition — New facts — Meaning (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160) (see paras 21, 22)

3. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision to exclude a tenderer from a tender procedure — Damage to its reputation — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 24, 25)

Re:

Application under Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2019 on the exclusion of the applicant from the further tendering procedure and its non-inclusion on the short list in connection with a procedure for the award of a contract under a programme entitled ‘EU Support to clean air in Kosovo’ to reduce dust and NOx emissions at TPP Kosovo B, Units B1 and B2 (EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures.
2

On 24 June 2019, the European Council, while stating that it was not defining its position on the substance of the applicant’s allegations and while assuring him that it accorded the utmost importance to the combating of fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the European Union, responded to the call to act by explaining to the applicant, in essence, that Article 15(2) TEU, a rule of primary law, intangibly laid down the composition of the European Council by providing that it ‘shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, and of its President and the President of the [European] Commission’. Thus, that composition could not be altered since that provision does not provide for the possibility of such an alteration. Furthermore, the European Council explained that the question of which person, as between the Head of State or Head of Government, should represent each of the Member States of the European Union was a matter for national constitutional law alone. Thus, it did not fall within the discretion of the European Council or its President to decide who should be the representative of each Member State within that institution, nor to decide whom, as between the Head of State or the Head of Government, it should invite to the various meetings of the European Council. Those principles also apply to the meetings of the Council of the European Union. In those circumstances, the European Council replied to the applicant, with regard to the call to act, that it was not in a position to exclude the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic from the meetings to which he referred.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2020 –

Micreos Food Safety v Commission

(Case T‑568/19)

(Action for annulment – Public health – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food – Rejection of the request to approve Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food – Act not open to challenge – Act not intended to produce binding legal effects – Purely confirmatory act – Informative act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measure entailing only a taking of a position on an intermediate and preparatory act – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004, Art. 3(2)) (see paras 37-39, 95, 106-108)

2. Action for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act – Inadmissibility – Concept of confirmatory decision – Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004) (see paras 51, 56, 58, 71, 73-77, 81, 91, 92)

3. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter limited to providing an interpretation of a regulatory text and expressing a mere opinion – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004, Art. 3(2)) (see paras 116, 117, 123, 125-133, 135)

4. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Purely informative measure – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 853/2004, Art. 3(2)) (see paras 151, 152, 157, 165)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission of 17 June 2019 by which the Commission: (i) rejected the original application by the applicant for the approval of Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food, or re-examined that application; (ii) rejected the alternative application to regard Listex™ P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid; and, (iii) prohibited the placing on the market of the European Union of that product as a processing aid in such food.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 May 2020 –

Csordas and Others v Commission

(Case T‑146/20 R)

(Application for interim measures – Civil service – Elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee – Regularity – Supervisory obligation of the institution – Application for interim measures – No prima facie case)

1. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 17-20, 26)

2. Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Regularity – Obligation of the institutions to ensure the regularity of electoral operations – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 9(2), 90 and 91) (see paras 24, 25)

3. Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Scheme applicable to the Central Committee and the local sections of the Commission’s Staff Committee – Information to be brought to the attention of voters – Affiliation or support of a candidate by a trade union or professional organisation – Optional and secondary element (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 9(2)) (see paras 36-38)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking, principally, in the first place, suspension of the operation of (i) the memo of 26 November 2019 from the polling office declaring the results of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee, (ii) the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2019 concerning the calculation of the representativeness of representative trade unions and staff associations in the institution, (iii) the mandate of the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee resulting from the elections of November 2019, (iv) the appointment by the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee of its delegates to the Commission’s Central Staff Committee, and (v) any other decision concerning the allocation of additional resources to the Commission’s staff representatives, and, in the second place, an order requiring the Commission to retain the outgoing Staff Committee until the judgment is handed down in the main proceedings, while limiting its mandate to current business, and, in the alternative, an order requiring the Commission, first, to limit to current business the mandate of the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee resulting from the elections of November 2019 and, second, an order requiring that local section to appoint to the Commission’s Central Staff Committee the representatives proposed by Union Syndicale Luxembourg.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 January 2021 –

Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission

(Case T‑34/20)

(Action for annulment – State aid – Software solutions for universities – Tax advantages and public funding – Formal investigation procedure – Decision classifying the implemented measures as existing aid – Lack of individual concern – No regulatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Individual concern – Criteria – Commission Decision on State aid adopted following the formal investigation procedure – Action by a competitor challenging the decision – Market position of the undertaking not substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 32-34, 44-51)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts – Commission decision authorising tax exemptions and annual direct subsidies granted pursuant to measures lacking general application – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 55, 56, 58, 59, 62-72)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2020/391 of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 – 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (OJ 2020 L 74, p. 22).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The application by the Federal Republic of Germany for leave to intervene in support of the European Commission has become devoid of purpose.
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – None – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 9-11, 15, 16)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2021 –

LG and Others v Commission

(Case T‑482/20)

(Action for annulment – Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – OLAF investigation – Legal professional privilege – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Precluded (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 46-50)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation – Decision refusing the protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients – Included – Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 51, 54-56)

3. Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Limits – Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 64)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) allegedly adopted tacitly in an email of 26 May 2020, by which OLAF allegedly rejected the claim for protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients regarding communications between the applicants and their lawyers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. LG and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (GT 10)

(Case T‑558/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT10 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded)

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 28, 29)

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 enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 31)

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 – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-37)

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 – Word Mark GT 10 and figurative mark GT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2020 (Case R 2554/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

1. The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2020 (Case R 2554/2019-4) is annulled.
2.

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Acknowledgement by the Parliament of the election of a Member of the European Parliament as a result of another parliamentary seat becoming vacant – No direct effect on the applicant’s legal position – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 33-35)
Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Contested act having subsequently been deprived of its effects – No withdrawal of the contested act – Action retaining its purpose

(Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131)

(see paras 20-23)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 12 August 2020 –

Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA

(Case T‑162/20 R)

(Interim relief – Plant protection products – Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 – Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb – Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential – Refusal to grant confidential treatment – Application for interim measures – No prima facie case)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 25, 27, 28)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action – Action against a decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) refusing confidential treatment of scientific assessments – Pleas lacking a prima facie foundation (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160(3)) (see paras 31, 33, 51, 57, 64, 67, 75, 76)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of EFSA Decision EFSA/LA/DEC/22911258/2020 of 28 January 2020 concerning the request for internal review of the decision relating to the applicant’s requests for confidential treatment of the conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of the active substance mancozeb.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed;

2. The order of 7 April 2020 delivered in the case T‑162/20 R is revoked;
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 9, 11, 12)
Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Supervision of the EU financial sector – Single supervisory mechanism – Powers of the European Central Bank (ECB) – Decentralised implementation by the national authorities – Less significant institutions subject to direct prudential supervision by the national authorities – Possibility for the ECB to exercise direct prudential supervision of those entities – Condition

(Council Regulation No 1024/2013, Arts 4(1) and 6; Regulation of the European Central Bank No 468/2014, Art. 67)

(see paras 24-29, 33-37)
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 10-13, 22)