ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

7 December 2011

Case T-274/11 P

Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni

v

European Commission

(Appeals – Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Expatriation allowance – Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Definition of habitual residence – Distortion of the facts – Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10 Mioni v Commission, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni is to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission on the appeal.

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

2. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal to implied grounds – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

1. The first instance court has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review by the General Court. Such distortion must be obvious – without any need for a new assessment of the facts and the evidence – from the documents on the Court’s file.

(see para. 18)

See:

Case T-222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-1-37 and II-B-1-267, paras 60 to 62 and the case-law cited therein

2. The obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons, pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 7(1) of Annex I thereto, does not require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account that follows exhaustively and point by point all the reasoning articulated by the parties to the case. The grounds stated may therefore be implicit, on condition that they enable the persons concerned to know the reasons for which a particular ruling was made and provide the General Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.

(see para. 34)

See:

2 July 2010, Case T-485/08 P Lafili v Commission, para. 72 and the case-law cited therein
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 July 2012 — Pigui v Commission

(Case T-382/11)

‛Action for failure to act — Position taken — Application for directions to be issued — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings — Inadmissibility — Position taken not satisfying the applicant — Irrelevant (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 17)

2. Education, professional training, youth and sport — Action programme in the area of life-long education and training — Jean Monnet sub-programme — Grant of operating subsidies to designated establishments — Obligation of the Commission to ensure protection of financial interests of the Union — Scope — Limits (European Parliament and Council Decision 1720/2006, Arts 4, 6(1) and (3), and 15(1), and annex, Section 14, sixth and seventh para.) (see paras 21-24)

3. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Directions issued to an institution — Not permissible (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 29)

Re:

ACTION for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the European Commission unlawfully failed to define its position on the applicant’s request, first, to initiate, pursuant to Articles 4 and 15 of Decision No 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 45), an investigation into the Online Master organised by the European Online Academy (EOA), founded by the Centre international de formation européenne (CIFE), in cooperation with the Jean Monnet Chair at the University of Cologne (Germany), and, second, to take all measures provided for by Article 6 of that decision in order to prevent further illegal conduct, to restore the situation ab initio of those persons affected by such illegal conduct or, at least, in so far as the applicant is concerned, and, lastly, to withdraw the funding for that Master if it fails to comply with key human rights principles, to which reference is made in Article 1(3)(i) of that decision, and relevant principles of European Union law.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 – Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-22/11 R)

Interim relief – Application for interim measures – Manifest inadmissibility

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Suspension of the measure in question granted by the General Court – Inadmissibility of a fresh application for interim measures having the same subject-matter and not conferring any advantage on the applicant (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 10-12)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010 C(2010) 9525 final State aid, MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows that Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s new operations after 15 February 2011 must be terminated.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s application for leave to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

(Case T‑429/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114(1) and (3)) (see para. 20)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 26, 27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action of an undertaking not being an actual beneficiary of that scheme at the time the decision was adopted — Inadmissibility — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 29-37, 40-46)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Distinction between being individually affected and having an interest in bringing an action (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 43)

5. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Not included (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 50-52, 54)

6. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment of a decision on State Aid declared inadmissible by the General Court — Possibility of requesting the national court to make a reference for a preliminary ruling (Arts 263 TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see para. 53)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 5 October 2011 – Computer Resources International (Luxembourg) v Commission

(Case T-422/11 R)

Interim measures – Public procurement – Tendering procedure – Rejection of a tender – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Loss of opportunity – No serious and irreparable damage – No urgency

1. Applications 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 (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-15)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-22, 28-31, 33)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – 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 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 38)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 which, first, rejects the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure AO 10340 concerning the supply of computing services for software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications (OJ 2011/S 66-106099) and, second, informs the applicant that the relevant framework contract has been awarded to other tenderers.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 December 2011 – Al‑Chihabi v Council

(Case T-593/11 R)

Interim relief – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for interim measures – No urgency – No serious and irreparable damage

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Loss capable of subsequent remedy by an action for compensation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-24, 26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-34)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage linked to infringement of certain fundamental rights – Right to property and right to free exercise of an economic activity – No absolute protection (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for, in essence, the suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), to the extent that those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 November 2011 – Xeda International v Commission

(Case T-269/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Plant protection products – Active substance ethoxyquin – Non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC – Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin – Application to suspend the operation of a measure – Lack of urgency

1. Applications 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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16, 19-20, 22, 38, 51)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 17)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Decision not to include a substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Risk normally having to be borne by an undertaking operating in the phytopharmaceuticals market – Damage not serious in nature (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71) and, if necessary, other interim measures.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 —

Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission





(Case T-203/11)

Non-contractual liability — Coach and bus services between Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — None — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 27)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy — Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Requirement of a clear and serious breach of the limits of the wide discretion of the EU legislature (Art. 340, second para; TFEU) (see para. 28)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Omissions of EU institutions — Requirement that a legal duty to act be disregarded (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 37-40)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy — Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Requirement of a clear and serious breach of the limits of the wide discretion of the EU legislature — Late submission by the Commission of a legislative proposal in the area concerned — No liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage purportedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the President of the General Court of 27 February 2012 —

Dagher v Council



(Case T-‑218/11 R)

Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 7, 8, 10)

Re:

Firstly, application for an order that the Council and the Italian Republic issue a visa to the applicant; secondly, application for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 28, p. 32) and Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 28, p. 60); and, thirdly, a claim for damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

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



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 8)

2. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought — Financial loss arising from a measure freezing funds — Mere affirmation that serious and irreparable damage imminent — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 9-10, 13-15, 19-20)
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-389/12 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Competition — Concentrations — Electricity market — Decision authorising a concentration operation subject to compliance with certain commitments — Refusal to grant the postponement of the deadline set for fulfilling those commitments — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency’

1. Applications 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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 9-11)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation capable of jeopardising the applicant company’s existence or irrevocably changing its market position — Burden of proof — Need to provide a faithful overall image of the financial situation of the undertaking (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-18, 22, 23)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in relation to Commission Decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant the postponement of the deadline fixed for fulfilling some of its commitments set out in Decision C(2009) 9059 of 12 November 2009, which authorises the concentration operation whereby Électricité de France was to acquire exclusive control of the assets of Segebel (Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/Segebel).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Natural or legal persons

—

Interest in bringing proceedings

—

Need for an actual and current interest

—

Action brought against a Commission decision concerning the question of detailed arrangements for recovering illegal and incompatible aid

—

Action brought by competitors of the beneficiary undertaking, placed in liquidation

—

Mere participation in the administrative procedure insufficient to give rise to an interest in bringing proceedings

—

No significant threat to the applicants’ market position

—

Uncertain future legal position

—

Potential annulment not connected to an action for compensation before the national courts

—

Hypothetical character of an action for compensation before the EU judicature

—

No interest in bringing proceedings

—

Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/99, Art. 14) (see paras 26-34, 37, 47-50, 53, 59

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 2401 final of 4 April 2012, concerning the takeover of assets of the Sernam group as part of its composition with creditors.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the French Republic and Calberson to intervene.

3. Mory SA, Mory Team and Superga Invest are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The French Republic and Calberson, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.