ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2012 — F 91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission

(Case T-341/10)

‛Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Procedure — Independent of the competition procedure (Art. 258 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see para. 43)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — E — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 50-53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application ‘for any appropriate order’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

3. The Fédération luxembourgeoise de football (FLF) shall bear its own costs.

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2012 — F 91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission

(Case T-341/10)

‛Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Procedure — Independent of the competition procedure (Art. 258 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see para. 43)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — E — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 50-53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application ‘for any appropriate order’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T‑109/10)

(Actions for annulment — FEDER –Reduction in financial aid — Programme Interreg II / ‘Rhine/Meuse Flooding’ — Non-compliance with time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action clearly well-founded)

1. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Infringement of essential procedural requirements—Non-compliance with a time-limit imposed by the EU legislature—To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 65, 67)

2. EU law—Principles—Rights of defence—Audi alteram partem rule—Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings—Scope (see para. 66)

3. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see para. 73)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial aid granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97)3742 of 18 December 1997 — (ERDF No 970010008), in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Community Initiative Interreg II/C ‘Rhine/Meuse Flooding’ in the Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF) No. 970010008) is annulled, in so far as it applies to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

2. The European Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 384/96, as amended by Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 23-34, 37-40)

2. Customs union — Arising of a customs debt on importation linked with release into free circulation of goods — Existence of the customs debt challenged — Exclusive competence of the national court (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 236 and 243 to 246) (see paras 35, 36)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Action by an importer not associated with the exporter, not being the main importer or the final user of the product — No factors constituting a particular situation characterising the applicant in relation to any other operator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1294/2009) (see paras 41, 42, 44, 51-58, 61-63, 71-75)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 1996 L 352, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Strålfors v OHIM (ID SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-211/10)

Action for annulment – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to the whole of the annexes – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (Case R 1111/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign ID SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Strålfors AB Community trade mark sought: Word mark ID SOLUTIONS for goods in Class 16 – Community trade mark application No – 8235202 Decision of the examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the contested decision





Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Strålfors AB is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 24 January 2011 – Rubinetterie Teorema v Commission

(Case T-370/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Decision of the Commission to impose a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of application – Financial harm – Lack of exceptional circumstances – 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 – Weighing-up of the interests – 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 10-12)

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 to which the applicant company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-33, 36-38)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-43)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of application of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39092 – Bathroom fittings and fixtures).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 – DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital v Commission

(Case T-533/10 R)

Interim measures – State aid – Alteration of the funding scheme of the Spanish radio and television broadcasting organisation (RTVE) – Commission decision declaring the new funding scheme compatible with the internal market – Application for suspension of operation – 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 – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge 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 21-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 26-27, 29-30)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment by reference to the situation of the group to which that company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 35)

4. 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 (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 40)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting (Art. 278 TEU) (see para. 55)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for RTVE (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9).

Operative part

1.The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-502/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/428/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 41).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 May 2012 —

UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission



(Case T‑344/10)

State aid — No decision to close the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Action for failure to act — Locus standi — Admissibility

Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission not terminating a formal investigation procedure on aid — Right of a competitor undertaking to bring an action — Condition — Market position significantly affected (Art. 88(2) EC; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 34, 35, 42-44, 47-50, 55, 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period, in the procedure under Article 88(2) EC, initiated on 12 September 2007, concerning State aid granted by the German authorities to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. UPS Europe NV/SA and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2011 – Regione Puglia v Commission

(Case T-84/10)

Action for annulment – ERDF – Decision incorporating reduction of financial assistance – Regional entity – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

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 a regional entity benefiting from that assistance and acting as management authority for the funds received – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility – Repercussion of the financial consequences of the decision onto that regional entity – No effect (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 29-30, 32-35, 37, 39-44, 48-53)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Laurent Gbagbo is ordered to bear his own costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications 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, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 8, 10-11, 19)

2. 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 – 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 para. 9)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13-14)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full reparation in the context of the action in the main proceedings or an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 18)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the debit note of 9 September 2011 issued by the Commission seeking recovery of the sum of EUR 83 001.09 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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.

2. The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs.

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.