ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

9 July 2003

((Procedure for interim relief – Urgency – None))

applicant,

v

defendant,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

makes the following

Order

Facts and procedure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

─ the relevant contract was signed on 22/02/2002 by myself and Mr Eich of EuropeAid, of the one part, and, on 27/02/2002, by Professor Thierry Lefèvre, Director of the Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development, of the other part;

─ the total amount of the project is [EUR] 68 704.70 of which [EUR] 34 352.35 was the subsidy paid by the European Commission to the project;

─ 80% of the Community subsidy, that is [EUR] 27 481.88, was paid as an advance. The remainder, that is [EUR] 6 870.47, will be paid when the project is completed;

─ the period of execution of the project is 15 months which will terminate on 28/05/2003;

─ the annex to this letter will inform you as regards the location of the amount;

─ the contract was drawn up following the publication, in the Official Journal of the European Communities, of a request for proposals for the Asia-Invest programme dated 10/04/2001 with the same title as that in the heading;

─ the award of the contracts results from the deliberations of an assessment committee, which must also be approved by the contracting authority, that is the European Commission.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

1.

2.

H. Jung B. Vesterdorf
Case T-341/02

Regione Siciliana

v

Commission of the European Communities

(ERDF – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Closure of financial assistance – Action for annulment – Direct concern – Inadmissibility)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), 8 July 2004

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision addressed to a Member State definitively closing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund – Action brought by a regional authority – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

In the present case, since the contested decision embodied the Commission’s refusal to extend the time-limit for the submission of applications for final payment and definitively closed the disputed assistance on the basis of the expenditure incurred by 31 December 1997 in respect of works completed by 5 September 2002, it excluded any ERDF payment by way of the disputed assistance in respect of expenditure which was either implemented after 31 December 1997 or related to works not completed by 5 September 2002, such expenditure being thereby rendered ineligible for that assistance.

In that situation, the contested decision could be regarded as having directly affected the applicant’s legal situation only if, by virtue of that decision, and without the Italian Republic’s having had any discretion in that regard, that applicant had, on the one hand, been deprived of payment of the withdrawn amounts corresponding to sums not yet received from the ERDF by way of the disputed assistance and relating to expenditure which had become ineligible and was, on the other hand, obliged to refund the amounts unduly paid corresponding to sums already received by way of that assistance and intended for the implementation of expenditure which had become ineligible.

However, the Court has already held that no such consequences derive either from a Commission decision terminating ERDF financial assistance or from any other provision of Community law intended to govern the effect of such a decision.

In those circumstances, reimbursement of the Community funds paid to the applicant would be the direct consequence, not of the contested decision, but of the action which would be taken for that purpose by the Italian Republic on the basis of national legislation in order to fulfil obligations under the Community rules on the subject.

(see paras 54, 57-58, 70)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for non-enforcement of the right to immediate payment of a fine — Conditions for granting — Exceptional circumstances — (Art. 242 EC)

Summary

An application for an exemption from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for the fine not being recovered immediately will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The possibility of requiring the provision of a financial guarantee is expressly provided for with regard to applications for interim relief by the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance and is a general and reasonable way for the Commission to act.

The existence of such exceptional circumstances may, in principle, be regarded as established where the party seeking exemption from providing the requisite bank guarantee adduces evidence that it is objectively impossible for it to provide such guarantee or where such provision would imperil its existence.

see paras 25-26
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Transfer of the intellectual property right in question – Successor substituted for the former holder of the right – Order of the Court of First Instance needed

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115 and 116; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

Summary

Where an intellectual property right at issue in an appeal against a decision of a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) concerning opposition proceedings is transferred, the new owner of that right, claiming through the party before the Board of Appeal, may be authorised by order to substitute itself for the transferor in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, where the former owner of the right has no objection and the Court of First Instance, having consulted the other parties to the action, considers it appropriate.

In the absence of any provisions in the Statute of the Court of Justice and the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance expressly governing the substitution of one party for another, the provisions of Articles 115 and 116 of the Rules of Procedure should be applied by analogy. In particular, the party claiming through the previous litigant must accept the dispute in the state in which it is at the time of the substitution.

(see paras 8-9)
Case T-319/03

Graham French and Others

v

Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

‛Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility — Action for damages’

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 20 February 2004 II-771

Summary of the Order

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Summary of the pleas raised — Action seeking compensation for damage caused by a Community institution

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and S3, first para.; Rules of Procedine of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d))

Under the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute, applies to proceedings before the Court of First Instance, and under Article 44(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application must state, among other things, the subject-matter of the proceedings, and contain the form of order sought and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based. Those matters must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary without further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself.

In order to satisfy those requirements, an application seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by a Community institution must state the evidence from which the conduct alleged against the institution can be identified, the reasons for which the applicant considers there is a causal link between the conduct and the damage it claims to have suffered, and the nature and extent of that damage.

(see paras 13, 14)
Case T-140/03





Forum 187 ASBL

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Declining of jurisdiction)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), 16 May 2003

Summary of the Order
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/33, Art. 3(1)) (see paras 45-47, 71-74

)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 January 2006 − Van Mannekus v Council

(Case T-278/03)

Dumping – Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China – Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier – Action for annulment – Objection of inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 114-122, 127)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 985/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/1999 on imports of magnesium oxide originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 1)

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those of the Council;
Keywords



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss –Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative nature – Weighing‑up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interest in bringing proceedings (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 26, 33-34)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, principally, a stay of execution until delivery of the judgment by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07 of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘tocai friulano’, which name appears in the form of an explanatory note to Point 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11), and, as a subsidiary plea, a stay of execution of that provision within the territory of the Italian Republic until delivery of the judgment by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑23/07 and C-24/07, together with a prohibition of exports of production in the Community and without prejudice to the marketing of Hungarian-produced wine bearing the name ‘tokaj’ or homonyms thereof accepted for marketing in Italy and in the Community.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Case T-291/04 R

Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International, Inc.

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Interim measures – Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC)

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 10 February 2005

Summary of the Order

1. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Irrelevance – Limits

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1))

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss –Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2007 – Italy v Commission

(Case T-431/04 R)

Interim relief – Application for interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 – Common organisation of the market in wine – System for the use of names of vine varieties and their synonyms – Use limited in time – Application devoid of purpose

1. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative nature – Weighing‑up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interest in bringing proceedings (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 26, 33-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, principally, a stay of execution until delivery of the judgment by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-23/07 and C-24/07 of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘tocai friulano’, which name appears in the form of an explanatory note to Point 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11), and, as a subsidiary plea, a stay of execution of that provision within the territory of the Italian Republic until delivery of the judgment by the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C‑23/07 and C-24/07, together with a prohibition of exports of production in the Community and without prejudice to the marketing of Hungarian-produced wine bearing the name ‘tokaj’ or homonyms thereof accepted for marketing in Italy and in the Community.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2007 – Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Friuli‑Venezia Giulia Federagricole and Others v Commission

(Case T‑418/04)

Actions for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 – Agriculture – Common organisation of the wine market – System for using names of grape varieties or their synonyms – Temporal limitation of use – Legal persons – Individually concerned persons – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249, second para., EC; Commission Regulation No 1429/2004, Annex I, point 103) (see para. 43-63)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the provision limiting to 31 March 2007 the right to use the name ‘Tocai friulano’ referred to, in the form of an explanatory note, in item 103 of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11).

Operative part

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 36-38)

2. Own resources of the European Communities – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see paras 39-47)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission (General Secretariat) contained in the letter of 8 July 2005, by which the Commission refused to open negotiations with the Republic of Finland concerning the conditional payment of duties claimed retroactively together with default interest accrued up to the date of payment of those duties, claimed by the Commission from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement procedure No 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 20)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Reformulation of the initial pleadings – Conditions (see para. 22)

3. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see para. 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005, rejecting the request for access by the applicant to a letter sent by the Directorate General for Competition to the Federal German Government concerning State aid proceedings.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 30)

Subject of the case

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision E(2004) 5522 of 21 December 2004 concerning the grant of financial assistance by the Cohesion Fund for the project entitled ‘Construction of Phase 1 of the second landfill site for waste in West Attica at “Skalistiri” in the municipality of Fyli’

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear the costs of the proceedings, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and (d)), and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 30-32, 34)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for re-examination of the applicant’s first and second applications for interim measures, dismissed by orders of the President of the Court of First Instance on 16 March and 27 June 2007 in Case T‑345/05 R and T‑345/05 R II, V v Parliament , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Application for suspension of the enforcement of a decision including a pecuniary obligation – Application seeking, in reality, suspension of the operation of another decision having effects on the applicant’s financial position (Arts 242 EC and 256 EC) (see paras 18, 21-24)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(2)) (see paras 33-39)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42-43)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Particular seriousness of the prima facie case (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-61)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 relating to recovery of the sum of EUR 318 000 received by the applicant as an advance in respect of the Ecodata project.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 – Brink’s Security Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-437/05 R)

Application for interim measures – Urgency – None

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39-40)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-52, 54)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 67-68)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures essentially asking, first, that the Commission be ordered not to sign the contract relating to Call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (security and surveillance of buildings), secondly, should the Commission have already concluded that contract, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action and, thirdly, for the adoption of other interim measures

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;