ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 –

Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-347/18 R II)

(Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Meaning

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160)

(see paras 7-9)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/613 of 20 April 2018 approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 2 and 4 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 1), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 10-12)
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 — 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 9, 11, 12)
Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Modification or withdrawal — Condition — Application for modification brought after dismissal of the initial application — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 24–26)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 18 March 2019 –

SKS Import Export v Commission

(Case T‑239/18)

(Action for annulment — Free movement of capital — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing (AML/CTF) — Directive (EU) 2015/849 — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/212 — Inclusion of Tunisia on the list of high-risk third countries — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Regulation supplementing a Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering or terrorist financing, by including a certain country on the list of high-risk third countries — Use by an economic operator established in that country of financial services involving cash flows in the course of its business activity — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, 4th para. TFEU)

(see paras 25, 29-34)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/212 of 13 December 2017, amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675 supplementing Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards adding Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and Tunisia to the table in point I of the Annex (OJ 2018 L 41, p. 4).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2019 –

Ayuntamiento de Enguera v Commission

(Case T‑602/18)

(Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Reduction of the amount of the grant — Reclassification of the action — Refusal of the applicant — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 and 272 TFEU) (see paras 24-27)

2. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions (Arts 263 and 272 TFEU) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 26 July 2018 confirming its position on the reduction of the amount of the grant awarded under grant agreement LIFE10 ENV/ES/000458 and giving notice of the issue of a recovery order for the sum of EUR 113 408.05.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Closing report of a pension fund including an annex treated as a group of individual decisions — Included — Inadequate statement of reasons — Irrelevant

(Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., 90(2), and 91(1); Decision 2015/1889, Art. 3, first and third para.)

(see paras 43-45, 47, 49, 50, 53, 55)
Order of the President of the General Court of 5 February 2019 –

Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA

(Case T‑675/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance azadirachtin — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment — No prima facie case)

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 — Formal requirements — Statement of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought — Assessment in litigation on the protection of confidential information — Extent of the burden of proof on the applicant — Condition of prima facie case not satisfied

(Arts 256(1), 278, 279 and 296 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 23-32, 35, 36, 39, 56, 71, 77)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority on the requests for confidentiality made in relation to the conclusions on the Peer Review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin of 11 September 2018 (EFSA/LA/DEC/19777743/2018).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 20 November 2018, Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA, (T‑675/18 R) is cancelled.
18

In that respect, it should be noted that the fact that Mr González Blanco is authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of a State party to the EEA Agreement satisfies a prerequisite for acting before the Courts of the European Union. However, according to the case-law, such an authorisation is not sufficient (order of 18 November 2014, Justice & Environment v Commission, T‑221/14, not published, EU:T:2014:1002, paragraph 8). Thus, it cannot be inferred from the fact that Mr González Blanco is authorised to practise before national courts that he is automatically allowed to represent the applicant before the General Court. The fact that the applicant lodged, in accordance with Article 51(3) of the Rules of Procedure, an authorisation for its representative to act on its behalf in the present proceedings is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing the separate requirement that such a representative must be a third party vis-à-vis the applicant.
Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 17, 24, 25, 27)
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

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

(see paras 19, 21, 22)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 –

Puma v EUIPO (SOFTFOAM)

(Case T‑182/19)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark SOFTFOAM — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Meaning (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 14)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of distinctive character — Figurative mark SOFTFOAM (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-22)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2019 (Case R 1399/2018-2), relating to the application for registration of the figurative sign SOFTFOAM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –

Shindler and Others v Council

(Case T‑541/19)

(Action for failure to act — Law governing the institutions — Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union — UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — 2019 European elections — Application for postponement of the European elections — Lack of standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Council’s omission to take a decision on the postponement of the 2019 European elections — Action brought by UK citizens residing in another EU Member State — Lack of standing — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., and Art. 265, third para., TFEU)

(see paras 25-30, 32-41)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Council acted unlawfully by failing to adopt a decision postponing the 2019 European elections with a view to allowing the applicants to play a part in the ballot.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Acts of the institutions – Decision amending the rules governing the additional voluntary pension scheme of Members of the European Parliament – Measure of general scope – Complaints procedure – Not applicable – Non-compliance with the time-limit for bringing an application to the Court – Action brought out of time – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament concerning implementing measures for the Statute of Members of the European Parliament, Art. 72)

(see paras 24-32)
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2020 –

Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T‑839/19)

(Action for annulment – Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to suspend the appeal proceedings pending a definitive decision of the General Court in the case which is likely to influence the pending case – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(1)) (see paras 25, 26, 28)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1006/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 16, 63)
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures – Concept – Commission Regulation concerning the verification, by approved panels, of the classification of an olive oil used by the undertaking concerned – Included

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2568/91, as amended by Regulation No 2019/1604, Art. 2(2), third subpara.)

(see paras 39, 43, 44, 49)
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see para. 15)
11

Article 2 of Regulation 2018/1724 provides as follows: ‘1. A single digital gateway (“the gateway”) shall be established by the Commission and the Member States in accordance with this Regulation. The gateway shall consist of a common user interface managed by the Commission (“the common user interface”), which shall be integrated into the Your Europe portal and shall give access to relevant Union and national webpages. 2. The gateway shall give access to: (a) information on rights, obligations and rules laid down in Union and national law that are applicable to users exercising or intending to exercise their rights derived from Union law in the field of the internal market in the areas listed in Annex I; (b) information on online and offline procedures and links to online procedures, including procedures covered by Annex II, established at Union or national level in order to enable users to exercise the rights and to comply with the obligations and rules in the field of the internal market in the areas listed in Annex I; (c) information on, and links to, the assistance and problem-solving services listed in Annex III or referred to in Article 7 which citizens and businesses can refer to if they have questions or problems related to the rights, obligations, rules or procedures referred to in points (a) and (b) of this paragraph.’
57

The applicant maintains that it is individually concerned by the contested directive, because it belongs to a closed and limited circle of five operators affected by that directive, namely owners and operators of pipelines already completed and operational as of 23 May 2019, connecting third countries and Member States of the European Union by sea and including an interconnection point located in the territory of the European Union. According to the applicant, the contested directive has had the effect of causing all those operators to fall within the scope of all the legislative obligations of Directive 2009/73 and set out in the national transposing legislation, at a time when all investment decisions relating to their infrastructure had been made a long time ago and that infrastructure was already constructed and operational. Thus, unlike operators of infrastructure that will be constructed in the future taking account of that new regulatory constraint, operators such as the applicant have been deprived, by the contested directive, of their status as operators of unregulated infrastructure. The conditions for the exercise of their activities is undoubtedly less favourable than has previously been the case as referred to in paragraph 61 of the judgment of 27 February 2014, Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission (C‑132/12 P, EU:C:2014:100), since they are affected by a fundamental change in the law applicable to their infrastructure and this has had significant consequences for the way in which funding for that infrastructure is structured and for their partnerships with gas suppliers such as Gazprom export, the applicant’s sole customer. In addition, those operators are distinct from future operators because, for the latter, the infrastructure which they will construct in the future will not be, by definition, infrastructure which was operational on 23 May 2019 for the purposes of the contested directive.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 June 2020 –

Walker and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑383/19)

(Action for annulment – Area of freedom, security and justice – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union – Regulation (EU) 2019/592 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 – Short-stay visa waiver on the basis of reciprocity – Alleged loss of EU citizenship – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure general in character – Conditions – Regulation concerning the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union with regard to visa requirements – Action brought by British nationals who exercised their right to freedom of movement and were unable to take part in the referendum which led to the initiation of the withdrawal procedure – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2019/592)

(see paras 32-34, 36, 39, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 54, 56, operative part 1)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 2019 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1806 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, as regards the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union (OJ 2019 L 103 I, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission.

3. Ms Hilary Elizabeth Walker, Ms Jennifer Ann Cording, Mr Douglas Edward Watson, Mr Christopher David Randolph and Mr Michael Charles Strawson shall bear their own costs, and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the General Court, except those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
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 – 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 14-17)
21

Moreover, the provisions of the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, which specify the formalities – notification or publication – from which the period for bringing an action for annulment begins to run, do not preclude an applicant from bringing an action before the EU Courts as soon as the act at issue has been adopted, without waiting for its notification or publication. It is not stated in that article that the bringing of such an action is subject to the publication or notification of that act. In order to allow the persons concerned sufficient time to challenge a published act of the European Union in full knowledge of the facts, the time limit for bringing an action against such an act starts to run, in accordance with the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, only upon its publication. The bringing of an action against a European Union act prior to its publication, provided that that act has been adopted, does not jeopardise the objective of there being a time limit for bringing proceedings, which is to protect legal certainty by ensuring that European Union measures which produce legal effects may not indefinitely be called into question. Consequently, while the publication of an act starts to run the period for bringing proceedings on expiry of which that act becomes final, it does not constitute a precondition for entitlement to bring proceedings against that measure (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 September 2013, PPG and SNF v ECHA, C‑626/11 P, EU:C:2013:595, paragraphs 35 to 39). However, it must be pointed out that the possibility of bringing an action before the contested act is published can be envisaged only if, as recalled in paragraph 18 above, the act in question produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant.