ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 – Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen v Commission

(Case T-550/08 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Commission decision imposing a fine — Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief (repayment of the fine already paid and waiver of a bank guarantee) — No prima facie case and 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 judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-13)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate payment of a fine — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/39181 – Candle waxes, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, application to release the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for release from the obligation of payment, and other applications for interim measures.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

29 July 2010

Case T-475/08 P

Radu Duta

v

Court of Justice of the European Union

(Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Post as Legal Secretary — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 in Case F-103/07 Duta v Court of Justice [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-277 and II-A-1-1481, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Radu Duta is to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 48(2), 138(1)(c) and 144)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mere repetition of pleas and arguments produced before the Civil Service Tribunal — Error of law relied on not identified — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 141(2))

1. It follows from Article 138(1)(c), read in conjunction with Article 48(2) and Article 144 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, that an appeal must contain, inter alia, a summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that new pleas in law may not be introduced in the course of the proceedings unless they are based on matters of law or of fact which have come to light in the course of the procedure.

(see para. 28)

See: C-430/00 P Dürbeck v Commission [2001] ECR I-8547, para. 17; judgment of 19 January 2010 in T-355/08 P De Fays v Commission, para. 34

2. A complaint which does not specifically identify the error of law allegedly vitiating the contested judgment and which essentially confines itself to reproducing the arguments already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which the appeal court does not have jurisdiction to undertake.

(see para. 32)

See: C-234/02 P Ombudsman v Lamberts [2004] ECR I-2803, para. 77 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 20 September 2006 in C-4/06 P Ouariachi v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 24
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time-limits

–

Inadmissibility

–

Meaning of confirmatory decision

–

Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors

–

Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 28-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 2 October 2008, informing the applicants that it was necessary to apply compound interest in the context of the recovery of State aid declared unlawful by Commission Decisions 2002/820/EC, 2002/894/EC and 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45% of investments (respectively, OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26, and OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1), and Commission Decisions 2002/892/EC, 2002/540/EC and 2002/806/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in respectively Álava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (respectively, OJ 2002 L 314, p. 1, OJ 2002 L 174, p. 31 and OJ 2002 L 279, p. 35), which were upheld by the judgments of the General Court in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01, T-265/01, T-266/01 and T‑270/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission [2009] ECR II-3029; and judgment of 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T‑230/01 and T-267/01 to T-269/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa – Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya – Diputación Foral de Vizcaya are ordered each to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 April 2008 – Cyprus v Commission

(Joined Cases T-54/08 R, T-87/08 R, T-88/08 R and T-91/08 R to T-93/08 R)

Applications for interim relief – Procurement notices for contracts to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus – Applications for suspension of operation of the notices – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – 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 21-22)

2. 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)) (see paras 50-51)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage capable of being relied on by a Member State (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 53)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 58-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of a number of procurement notices issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus, in the fields of energy, the environment, agriculture, telecommunications, education and crop management and irrigation.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Joins Cases T-54/08 R, T-87/08 R, T-88/08 R and T-91/08 R to T‑93/08 R for the purposes of this order;

2. Dismisses the applications for interim relief;
Keywords



Keywords

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

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

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

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Action by a trade association of all vessel owners active in the fishing and fisheries processing and marketing industry — Members of the association not themselves having locus standi –Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 34, 35)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2008 – People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council

(Case T-284/08 INTP)

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Interpretation of a judgment – Conditions for the admissibility thereof (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 129) (see para. 8)

Re:

APPLICATION for interpretation of the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2008 in Case T-284/08.

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.

2. The Council is ordered to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2008 – Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission

(Case T-312/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Directive 94/57/EC – Common rules and standards applicable to ship inspection and survey organisations – Withdrawal of recognition granted to such an organisation – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-20)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining suspension – Negative administrative decision – No interest (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

3. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Direction to the Commission to extend or renew the authorisation of a body enabling it to inspect vessels and issue maritime safety certificates in the name of the Member State – Measure incompatible with the allocation of powers between institutions – Rejection (Arts 233 EC and 243 EC; Council Directive 94/57) (see paras 28-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission withdrawing the recognition granted to the applicant by Commission Decision 2005/623/EC of 3 August 2005 on the extension of the limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (Ellinikos Niognomon AE) (OJ 2005 L 219, p. 43).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2009 – CHEMK and KF v Council and Commission

(Case T-190/08)

Actions for annulment – Period allowed for commencing proceedings – Partial inadmissibility – Intervention

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Measure requiring notification – Calculation – Exceeding of the time-limit – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 101(1) and 102(2)) (see paras 19-23)

2. Procedure – Intervention – Party not being capable of being regarded as defendant due to the late introduction of its action for annulment – Lawfulness (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115 and 116) (see paras 24-26)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6) and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision of the Commission of 28 February 2008 rejecting the applicants’ request that the anti-dumping duty be suspended.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission decision of 28 February 2008 rejecting the request of Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) for suspension of anti-dumping duties.

2. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in Case T-190/08 in support of the form of order sought by the Council.

3. The Registrar shall send to the Commission a copy of every document served on the parties.

4. A period shall be prescribed within which the Commission may submit a statement in intervention.

5. The decision on the application for measures of organisation of procedure and for measures of inquiry is reserved.

6. CHEMK and KF are ordered to pay the costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility. As to the remainder, the costs are reserved.
Order of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2008 – AEPI v Commission

(Case T-392/08 R)

Interim measures – Decision of the Commission ordering cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Art. 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

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

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – EREF v Commission

(Case T-40/08)

Action for annulment – Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 22-34)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning the measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission of the European Communities
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2012 —

AJD Tuna v Commission



(Case T‑329/08)

Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by an owner of undertakings authorised to fatten and rear red tuna — Applicant not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 30‑35, 38-‑44)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 46)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission’s administrative order of 9 September 2008 amending specific contract 2007/146271, which had been concluded between the Commission and the framework contractor for the project ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’ carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by reducing the number of days’ work carried out by the applicant – under a contract between him and the framework contractor – for which the framework contractor could bill the Commission, and second, the award of damages.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see para. 22)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Not constituting unlawfulness (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC; Art. 141 EA) (see paras 27-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Bent Hansen is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension – Negative administrative decision – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position – Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 34-35)

2. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Link of the measure sought to the pleadings in the main action – Provisional character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-39)

3. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Measure incompatible with the distribution of powers between institutions – Application seeking to enjoin the Commission to apply a possible annulment judgment in the main action in a particular way – Inadmissibility (Arts 266 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for suspension of operation of Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009 declaring inadmissible the applicants’ request for review by the Commission of its Decision C(2009) 2560 final of 7 April 2009 granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from its obligations in combating ambient air pollution; and (ii) for interim measures requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to comply with those obligations at the earliest opportunity.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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

–

Decision of the Commission, addressed to a Member State, reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and requiring partial reimbursement of sums paid

–

Action brought by regional bodies designated as beneficiaries of the assistance

–

Not directly concerned

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34, 37-39, 41-42, 45, 53-54

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region (Netherlands) coming under objective 2 – No 97.07.13.003 – granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action i s dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Subject-matter – Partial annulment – Condition – Severability of the contested provisions – Provisions of a Commission decision enlarging the area of a site of Community importance – Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the decision – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2009/95) (see paras 34, 37-42)

2. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Action inadmissible – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – No impact on the assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 47-49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393) to the extent that it extends the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (ES6120032) to the territorial waters of Gibraltar (both within and outside Site UKGIB0002) and to an area of the high seas.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Government of Gibraltar is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are ordered to bear their own costs.