ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 March 2019 –

Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T‑766/16 R-RENV)

(Application for interim measures — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Satisfaction accorded to the main action — Proceedings which have become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Satisfaction accorded to the main action — Application which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU)

(see paras 1-9)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking a suspension of operation of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State Aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

Operative part

1. There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD in the proceedings for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2018 –

Abes v Commission

(Case T‑813/16)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Grants from the Portuguese authorities to an entity providing social services for the elderly — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding no State aid — Action challenging the merits of the contested measure — No substantial effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Decision of the Commission finding no State aid—Action of a third party challenging the validity of that decision—Third party not demonstrating that its competitive position on the relevant market substantially affected—Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 41-45, 48, 49, 51, 55, 56, 58-61)

2. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Interpretation by the court—Limit—Reclassification of the subject-matter of the action (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 46)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 5054 final of 9 August 2016 on State Aid SA.38920 (2014/NN), declaring, after the preliminary examination stage, that the grant awarded to Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Tomar does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Abes — companhia de assistência, bem-estar e serviços para seniores, Lda is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
12

It must be noted, moreover, that, conversely, so far as concerns third-party proceedings, Article 167 of the Rules of Procedure expressly provides that a stay of execution of the contested judgment or order may be ordered, on application by the third party, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 156 to 161 of the Rules of Procedure, thereby conferring that jurisdiction on the President of the General Court in his capacity as the judge hearing the application for interim measures, in accordance with the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union does not specify, with regard to third-party proceedings, the formation of the Court that has jurisdiction to order the stay of execution of the judgment, but merely refers, in general terms, to the cases and conditions to be determined by the Rules of Procedure, in contrast to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union in respect of an application to have a judgment set aside.
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–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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 21-24)
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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 9-12)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2018 –

W&O medical esthetics v EUIPO — Fidia farmaceutici (HYALSTYLE)

(Case T‑178/17)

(EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HYALSTYLE — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Request for the hearing of witnesses — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

1. EU trade mark—Procedural provisions—Measures of inquiry—Hearing of witnesses—Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 78(1)(b); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 57) (see paras 17-19)

2. EU trade mark—Surrender, revocation and invalidity—Absolute grounds for invalidity—Applicant in bad faith when lodging the trade mark application—Criteria for assessment—Taking into account of all relevant factors at the time of filing the application for registration—Applicant’s knowledge that a third party is using an identical or similar sign—Circumstance not sufficient to establish bad faith (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 28-30)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2017 (Case R 872/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between W&O medical esthetics and Fidia farmaceutici.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2018 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission

(Case T‑130/17)

(Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of the OPAL pipeline in regard to third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Whether directly concerned—Criteria—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Action of a company competing with the company to which the decision is addressed—Not directly concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 26-28)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision—Conditions—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Action of a company competing with the company to which the decision is addressed—Not individually concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 32-35, 37-39, 41)

3. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU—Any act of general scope other than legislative acts—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Not included (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 44, 45, 48)

4. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Regulatory acts—Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly—Act not in itself altering the applicant’s situation—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 49)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57), from the rules on third-party access and tariff regulation.

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.

3. Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

4. The Federal Republic of Germany shall bear its own costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
Case T‑719/17 R

FMC Corp.

v

European Commission

(Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1496 — Non-renewal of approval of the active substance DPX KE 459 (flupyrsulfuron-methyl) — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 22 June 2018

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Serious nature of the harm — Assessment in the absence of information concerning the size of the undertaking concerned — Financial harm which is objectively significant sustained by an undertaking owing to an alleged obligation to make a commercial choice within a disadvantageous timescale — Risk that should normally be borne by an undertaking operating in a highly regulated market — No urgency

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU)

In interim proceedings, it is true that it is apparent from the case-law that it cannot be excluded that financial harm which is objectively significant and which allegedly results from the obligation to make a final commercial choice of some magnitude within a disadvantageous timescale, could be considered as ‘serious’, or even that the seriousness of such harm could be considered as obvious, even in the absence of information concerning the size of the undertaking concerned.

However, that case-law must be assessed having regard to the field in which the applicant operates. In the context of a highly regulated market in which the competent authorities may intervene rapidly when public health risks become apparent, for reasons which cannot always be foreseen, it is for the undertakings concerned, if they are not to bear themselves the loss resulting from such intervention, to protect themselves against its consequences by adopting an appropriate policy.

(see paras 59, 60)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 –

Gratis iç ve Dis Ticaret v EUIPO (gratis)

(Joined Cases T‑495/17 and T‑496/17)

(EU trade mark — Applications for EU figurative marks gratis — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) 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 any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 17)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria — Perception of the trade mark by the relevant public — Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative marks gratis (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 27-30, 38)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 34)

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 (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 35-37)

Re:

Actions brought against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 May 2017 (Cases R 506/2017-2 and R 507/2017-2) concerning the applications for registration of the figurative signs gratis as EU trade marks.

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed.
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Summary of the pleas in law and arguments relied on — Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application — Pleas in law and arguments not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 22, 28, 29)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 November 2018 –

Daico International v EUIPO — American Franchise Marketing (RoB)

(Case T‑355/17)

(EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Figurative mark RoB — Declaration of invalidity — Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 68(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Rule 49(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 23(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Rule 62(3) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 58(3) of Regulation 2018/625) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Observance of the rights of the defence — Scope of the principle (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, second sentence) (see para. 21)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by registered letter — Calculation of time-limits — Date of receipt (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2) and 62(3)) (see paras 29, 30, 35)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2017 (Case R 1405/2016-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between American Franchise Marketing and Daico International.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
An action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU must be brought against the EU institution, body, office or agency that adopted the measure in question. In that regard, since a plea that a measure of general application under Article 277 TFEU is inapplicable does not constitute an independent right of action and recourse may be had to it only as an incidental plea, a plea of illegality raised by an applicant against a Commission regulation is not sufficient to bring that institution before the EU Courts where the contested decision does not emanate from that institution.

In the absence of publication or notification, it is for the party which learns of a decision concerning it to request the whole text thereof within a reasonable period and the period for bringing an action can begin to run only from the moment at which the third party concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content of the decision in question and of the reasons on which it is based. Subject to that proviso, the period for bringing an action can begin to run only from the moment at which the third party concerned acquires precise knowledge of the content and grounds of the act in question, in such a way as to enable it to effectively exercise its right of action.

The reasonable period in which to request communication of a decision after becoming aware of its existence is not a pre-determined period that can automatically be inferred from the period for bringing an action for annulment, but one that depends on the circumstances of the particular case. As regards the concept of a reasonable period, it has been held that a two-month period, calculated from the date on which a party became aware of the existence of a decision in order to request its communication, exceeds a reasonable period. It has also been held that a request to be sent the full text of a decision, made more than four months after the applicant became aware of the existence of the measure, has to be regarded as being outside any reasonable period.

Accordingly, an action brought over one year after the applicant became aware of the decision is manifestly out of time and must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 33, 39-41, 47)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 10 July 2018 –

Fundación Tecnalia Research & Innovation v REA

(Case T‑104/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Recovery of the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of 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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 13-16)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Serious and irreparable damage—Financial loss—Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company—Burden of proof—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 19, 22, 25, 28)

3. 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 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 24, 26)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the REA’s decision to seek full repayment of the grant awarded for the Food-Watch project.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 28 November 2018 –

ZU v Commission

(Case T‑671/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Civil service — Application for suspension of operation — 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 — 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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 14-17)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage based on the happening of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 20, 21, 40)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 22, 23, 25, 43)

4. 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 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 24, 26)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 29)

6. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 36, 38)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking a suspension of the operation of the Decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of the European Commission of 12 October 2018 (Ares(2018)5241886 — 12/10/2018) relating to the transfer of the applicant, and of the Decision of the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security of the European Commission of 29 October 2018 (Ares(2018)5529220 — 29/10/2018) relating to his return to headquarters.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.