ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council

(Case T‑572/11 R II)

Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim relief — Fresh application — Absence of new facts — Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of introducing a fresh application — Condition — New facts — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 9-10, 12, 14-15)

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 — Consequences when examining a new application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim relief, in particular an application for suspension of operation of the restrictive measures instituted by the Council against Syria, in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2012 —

Dansk Automat Brancheforening v Commission



(Case T‑601/11 R)

Interim measures — State aid — Danish law instituting lower duties for providers of online gaming — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests

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 — Weighing-up of the interests — 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 16‑18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage capable of affecting a general economic sector — Action brought not by a public law body but by individuals — Obligation to claim individual damage (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25‑27)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 29, 36, 37, 43, 44)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 47)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 48)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 6499 final of 20 September 2011 on measure No C 35/2010 (ex N 302/2010) which the Kingdom of Denmark was planning to implement in the form of duties for online gaming in the Danish Gaming Duties Act.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-340/11)

Action for damages — State aid — Limitation — Damage for which compensation may be awarded — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction

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 paras 25, 30, 50)

2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Responsibility for an individual act — Date of appearance of the prejudicial effects of the act — Date cognisance taken of the unlawfulness of the conduct — Irrelevant — Relationship between the action for compensation and the action for annulment (Arts 63 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 28, 29, 31, 36, 39, 40)

3. Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Claim for indemnity in respect of the cost of proceedings brought before the national courts — General Court not having jurisdiction — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(5)) (see paras 44, 45)

4. Non-contractual liability — Damage — Damage for which compensation is available — Costs incurred for the proceedings — Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

Re:

ACTION for damages brought on the basis of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of the unlawful decision of the Commission of 10 November 1997 concerning State aid N 679/97 and, secondly, on account of an alleged infringement of the principle of sound administration stemming from a failure on the part of the Commission to compensate for the harmful effects of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 —

Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council



(Case T‑656/11 R)

Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — 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 — 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. 104(2)) (see paras 13‑16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 19)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 20)

4. 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 — Irreparable alteration in market share — Whether included — Conditions (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para 28, 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), in so far as those measures add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
59

In any event, the fifth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU cannot call into question the General Court’s jurisdiction, as provided for in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see paragraphs 49 and 52 above). Any interpretation to the contrary would risk undermining the clear separation between, on the one hand, the legislative and executive powers and, on the other, the judicial powers underlying Articles 13 TEU to 19 TEU, and the duty which falls on the EU Courts alone to ensure that ‘in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed’, as required by the second sentence of Article 19(1) TEU. This is all the more clear since the wording of Article 122(2) of Trade mark Regulation No 207/2009, under which the Commission is to ‘require that any unlawful acts as referred to in paragraph 1 be altered or annulled’, presupposes that the Commission has made a finding of unlawfulness and, therefore, a genuine judgment of the acts of the President of OHIM, as would a court. Similarly, the passage in the first sentence of Article 122(3), which states that ‘Member States and any person directly and individually concerned may refer to the Commission any act … for the Commission to examine the legality of that act’ shows that the EU legislature intended to confer on the Commission a power of review similar to that of the Court of Justice under the second and fourth paragraphs of Article 230 EC. Moreover, even if, from the EU legislature’s point of view, on the date of adoption of Article 122 of Trade mark Regulation No 207/2009, that power of review of lawfulness conferred on the Commission could still be intended to make up for any shortcoming in the Treaty’s system of judicial protection, that power in any event lost its purpose following the entry into force of the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (see paragraph 56 above).
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 —

Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case T‑468/12)

‛Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Exceptions — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept — Limits (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 19-26, 29-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 20).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Firma Handlowa Faktor B. i W. Gęsina, Gęsina Wojciech is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 22 January 2014 —

Faktor B. i W. Gęsina v Commission

(Case T‑468/12)

‛Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Exceptions — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept — Limits (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 19-26, 29-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 554/2012 of 19 June 2012 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2012 L 166, p. 20).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 May 2013 — FH v Commission

(Case T-405/12)

‛Action for annulment and damages — Decision of the Commission to withdraw from the applicant the documents giving him access to Commission buildings — Action for annulment — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Harm — Action manifestly unfounded in law’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 15, 16, 20, 23)

2. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment — Limits — Action for cancellation of a measure which has become final — Inadmissibility (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

3. 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 paras 32, 33)

4. Non-contractual liability — Damage — Damage for which compensation is available — Costs incurred for the proceedings — Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 40, 41)

Re:

Firstly, annulment of the Commission decision of 10 July 2012 withdrawing from the applicant the documents giving him access to Commission buildings and, secondly, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2012 — Région Poitou-Charentes v Commission

(Case T-31/12)

Action for annulment — Structural funds — Measure not subject to review — Measure in part informative and in part preparatory — Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter requesting an authority managing a Community initiative programme for additional information concerning the final report on implementation of the programme, before the expiry of the five-month period specified in Article 37(1), fourth paragraph, of Regulation No 1260/1999 — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1260/1999, Art. 37(1), fourth para.) (see paras 32, 33, 39, 41, 49, 52)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 18 November 2011, mentioning as its subject: ‘Closure of the programme “Atlantic Area” 2000-2006, Approval of the Final Report, CCI: 2001 RG 16 0PC 006’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

14 November 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F‑17/12 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1) and (6))

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant appearing at the bottom of the application lodged by fax is not identical to that appearing on the original of the application lodged subsequently, the application sent by fax cannot be taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings.

In European Union civil service disputes, Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Tribunal is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days after the copy of the original was received. Consequently, where it appears that the original of the pleading which is lodged in hard copy at the Registry within ten days of a copy being faxed to the Civil Service Tribunal does not bear the same signature as that appearing on the faxed document, it must be held that what has been received by the Registry of the Tribunal are two separate pleadings, each bearing a signature of its own, even where each of those signatures has been appended by the same person. The strict application of Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 14, 19)

See:

C-426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I-8849, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Weighing-up of the interests — 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 34-36)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Suspension of operation of a decision of the European Medicines Agency granting a third party access to reports of clinical trials — Need to maintain the effectiveness of the decision of the General Court in the action in the main proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 39-44)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Risk of serious and irreparable damage to fundamental rights (Arts 6(1), first para., TEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 339 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 7 and 47) (see paras 47-48, 52)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a decision of the European Medicines Agency granting a third party access to reports of clinical trials — Pleas concerning the confidentiality of information covered by business secrecy — Pleas revealing the existence of complex legal questions — Pleas not prima face unfounded (Arts 278 TFEU and 339 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 7) (see paras 54, 55, 65-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, in essence, for suspension of operation of EMA Decision EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013, granting a third party access to certain documents containing information submitted as part of an application for authorisation to place the medicinal product Humira, used to treat Crohn’s Disease, on the market, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The operation of EMA Decision EMA/748792/2012 of 14 January 2013 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), granting a third party access to Clinical Study Reports M02-404, M04-691 and M05-769, submitted as part of an application for authorisation to place the medicinal product Humira, used to treat Crohn’s Disease, on the market, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, is suspended.

2. The EMA is ordered not to disclose the documents referred to in point 1 of the operative part of this order.

3. Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑446/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Single Judge) of 4 June 2013 in Case F‑119/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15