ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions of admissibility

–

Main application dismissed as inadmissible (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 4

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation modifying national quotas for milk – Measure of general scope – Action by milk producers – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 248/2008) (see paras 29, 33-40, 46)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC, 235 EC, 241 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 50-52)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see para. 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV, Romuald Schaber, Stefan Mann and Walter Peters are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.

3. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14-15)

2. Actions for annulment – Action brought against a vacancy notice emanating from the Economic and Social Committee and not from the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Act imputable exclusively to that Committee – Action brought against the Committee and the Commission – Partial inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 17-21)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Vacancy Notice No 73/07 concerning the post of Secretary-General (grade A* 16) to the EESC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 316 A, p. 1), and the corrigendum to that notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 January 2008 (OJ 2008 C 25 A, p. 21).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay, in addition to the costs it incurred in the context of the present action in so far as it is directed against the Commission, the costs incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 — Ivanov v Commission

(Case T-166/08)

‛Non-contractual liability — Local administrative and technical staff — Rejection of application — Jurisdiction of the Court — Annulment action time-barred — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Act of the European Ombudsman — Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any legal basis’

1. Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Claim for compensation in respect of damage for which the Community liable — Exclusive jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 41)

2. Actions for damages — Independent of actions for annulment — Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive — Inadmissibility (Art. 235 EC) (see paras 51, 52)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 70-72)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistant at the Commission delegation in Sofia (Bulgaria).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission

(Case T-176/08)

‛Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning the maintenance of OHIM’s computer systems — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Implied Commission decision to dismiss — New claims — Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Definition — Administrative action against a measure of the President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market in the context of the awarding of public contracts — Implied rejection decision by the Commission — Not included — Action for failure to act inadmissible (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 118) (see paras 36-40)

2. Procedure — Subject-matter of the dispute — Alteration once proceedings have been started (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 42)

3. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to action for annulment and action for failure to act — Manifest inadmissibility of actions for annulment and for failure to act — Compensation claim closely linked to the action for a declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 46-48)

Re:

First, application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts under the tendering procedure AO/042/05 of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for software maintenance relating to OHIM core business systems on trade marks and designs, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, application for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 2 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. infeurope is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

3. It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene submitted by European Dynamics SA.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 – Buczek Automotive v Commission

(Case T-1/08 R)

Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25, 32-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – GEMA v Commission

(Case T-410/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 43-44, 48, 71)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the combined provisions of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 – VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission

(Case T-185/08 R)

Interim measures – Inadmissibility

Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Main application dismissed as inadmissible (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 4)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures under Article 243 EC in relation to an action for failure to act against the Commission.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Italy v EESC and Commission

(Case T-117/08)

Procedural issue – Objection of inadmissibility – Partial inadmissibility of the action – Acts not imputable to the Commission

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 14-15)

2. Actions for annulment – Action brought against a vacancy notice emanating from the Economic and Social Committee and not from the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) – Act imputable exclusively to that Committee – Action brought against the Committee and the Commission – Partial inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 17-21)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Vacancy Notice No 73/07 concerning the post of Secretary-General (grade A* 16) to the EESC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 316 A, p. 1), and the corrigendum to that notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 January 2008 (OJ 2008 C 25 A, p. 21).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2009 – CPEM v Commission

(Case T-106/08)

Action for annulment – Debit note – Non-actionable measure – Confirmatory measure – Inadmissibility – Action for compensation – Action clearly without legal foundation

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25, 29)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007, cancelling the assistance granted to CPEM by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

Operative part

1. The application for annulment is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The claim for compensation is dismissed as clearly without legal foundation.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Nuova Agricast v Commission

(Case T-373/08)

Non-contractual liability – Aid scheme under Italian legislation – Scheme declared compatible with the common market – Transitional measure – Exclusion of certain undertakings – Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – None – Clear lack of jurisdiction – Action manifestly devoid of any basis 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. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 50, 92-93)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure – Need to be taken into consideration when examining liability (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 72)

3. State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Identification of individual aids falling within the temporal scope of that scheme – Date of the legally binding measure requiring the competent national authority to grant the aid – Strict interpretation of derogations from the prohibition of State aid precluding the extension of the temporal scope of an approved aid scheme (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 76-78)

4. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to an aid scheme – Limitation of the temporal effects of the decision – Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – None – Breach of principle of equal treatment – None (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 84, 88)

Re:

ACTION for non-contractual liability seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s adopting the decision of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections to a State aid scheme in the form of aid for investment in disadvantaged regions of Italy (Aid No 715/99 – Italy (SG 2000 D/105754) and by reason of the Commission’s conduct prior to the adoption of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2010 – ICO Services v Parliament and Council

(Case T-441/08)

Actions for annulment – Decision No 626/2008/EC – Common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of mobile systems by satellite – No direct concern – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Identification of the parties to the dispute – Application to replace the applicant with a sister company not being a successor to the applicant’s whole legal position – Inadmissible (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural and legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision, addressed to Member States, establishing a common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of mobile systems by satellite – Action by an operator – Decision not producing direct effects on the said operator’s legal position – Not directly concerned – Inadmissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-65)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity – Availability of an action for annulment before the Community Court in the event of an insurmountable obstacle at the level of national procedural rules – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 67-68)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. ICO Services Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Interim measures

–

Main action previously dismissed

–

Application which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in the context of an action against the Republic of Hungary.

Operative part

Operative part

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

2. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate (see paras 28-31)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35-39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to take the measures necessary to harmonise the tariff heading criteria for dicalcium phosphate, and an application for reimbursement of the difference between the amounts that the applicant has had to pay since 1995 by way of customs duties and those which would have been payable had the rate for Tariff Code 28 35 25 90 been applied to the importation of dicalcium phosphate from Tunisia or an indemnity of an equivalent amount.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene of Timab Ibérica SL.

3. Química Atlântica Lda is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the European Commission .
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Concept

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Preparatory measures

–

Letter sent by the Commission to a national regulatory authority in the context of the procedure under Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55

–

Not included (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/55, Art. 22(4)) (see paras 37-47, 52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 12 June 2009 addressed to the Bundesnetzagentur (German Regulatory Authority) on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. RWE Transgas a.s. is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Czech Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an inspection – Addressee (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Decision ordering a legal person and the entities controlled by it to submit to an inspection – Scope (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6524 of 29 October 2008, in Case COMP/39510, ordering Laboratoire Champagnat Desmoulins Philippakis, and all of the entities controlled directly or indirectly by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2002 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.

2. Biocaps is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see para. 48)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Compulsory – Action brought before the expiry of the time-limit for the institution’s reply – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 52-53)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 74-75)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 76-78, 83)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the European Union delegation to Nigeria have failed to act and, secondly, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. Tecnoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission

(Case T-327/09)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by the actual beneficiaries of aid granted under that scheme and having to be repaid — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 230(4) EC) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Imprecision as to the amount, date and subject matter of the measures which benefited the applicants — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 31, 33)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Philippe Connefroy and Jean-Guy Gueguen and EARL de Cavagnan are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission

(Case T-327/09)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by the actual beneficiaries of aid granted under that scheme and having to be repaid — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 230(4) EC) (see paras 21-23)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Imprecision as to the amount, date and subject matter of the measures which benefited the applicants — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 31, 33)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.