ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2019 –

Dickmanns v EUIPO

(Case T‑181/19)

(Civil Service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Purely confirmatory act — Time limit for complaints — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Implied rejection of a request not challenged within the prescribed time limit — Subsequent express decision — Confirmatory measure (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(2)) (see para. 38)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 51, 52)

3. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 56, 57)

4. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Burden thereof — Taking into account of the requirements of equity — Order for the successful party to pay the costs (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 134(1) and 135(2)) (see paras 60-63)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 4 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s requests to remove the termination clause in Article 5 of her contract, reclassify her contract as a contract of indefinite duration, withdraw, if necessary, the decision of 14 December 2017 and grant a second contract extension beyond 30 September 2018 or, at least, include her in the procedure for a second renewal of temporary agent contracts in accordance with the guidelines for the renewal of temporary agent contracts of 28 January 2016 and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2019 –

Jap Energéticas y Medioambientales v Commission

(Case T‑145/19)

(Action for annulment — Grant agreement concluded under the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — No reclassification of the action — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission — Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 and 299 TFEU) (see paras 23-26)

2. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Applicant not having expressly requested reclassification — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion of reclassification (Arts 263 and 272 TFEU) (see paras 28-37)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission on 14 January 2019 in order to recover the sum of EUR 82 750.96 paid to the applicant in the context of financial assistance for a prototype project for the production of hydrogen using clean water, ammonia and recycled aluminium.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Non-contractual liability — Infringement by the EU institutions of a legal obligation to act — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures to ensure that Romania fulfils its obligations concerning the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary and the right to a fair trial — Failure to adopt a decision to initiate proceedings for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Commission's duty to act — None — No illegality capable of rendering the EU non-contractually liable

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; Protocol of 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, Arts 37 and 38)

(see paras 35-40, 48, 49, 62-64)
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 18, 19)
Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 4-6)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 September 2020 –

IMG v Commission

(Case T‑645/19)

(Action for annulment – Development cooperation – Implementing the EU budget in indirect management – Execution of a judgment of the Court of Justice – Commission letter requesting that certain documents be provided – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory measure – Inadmissibility – Action for damages – Close link with the claim for annulment – Lis pendens – Inadmissibility – Failure to comply with procedural requirements – Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 45-49)

2. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – Scope – Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account – Retroactive effect of annulment (Art. 266 TFEU) (see paras 55, 56, 58, 59, 67)

3. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – Scope – Decision not necessarily having to be on the same grounds as those appearing in the annulled measure (Art. 266 TFEU) (see para. 57)

4. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Adoption of measures of compliance – Reasonable time – Criteria for assessment – Letter from the Commission requesting that certain documents be produced – Preparatory act – Application for annulment of that – Inadmissibility (Art. 266 TFEU) (see paras 72-76)

5. Actions for damages – Application for damages linked to an application for annulment – Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (see para. 80)

6. Judicial proceedings – Objection of lis pendens – Same parties, subject matter and submissions in two actions – Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 82)

7. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – None – Actions for damages – Manifest inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 126) (see paras 89-93)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of the Commission of 18 July 2019 by which the Commission, in execution of the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C‑183/17 P and C‑184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), requests the applicant to provide certain documents and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that letter and of the Commission decisions annulled by that judgment.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 October 2020 –

Gáspár v Commission

(Case T‑827/19)

(Action for annulment – Civil service – Transfer of national pension rights – Complaint brought after the expiry of the three-month period laid down in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations – No excusable error – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – To be considered of the Court's own motion (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 18, 19, 40, 43)

2. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – Time-barred – Excusable error – Definition (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 28, 30, 33)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 23 May 2018 confirming the transfer to the pension scheme of the EU institutions of pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into the service of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2020 –

Sharpston v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑184/20)

(Action for annulment – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Letter from the President of the Court of Justice inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter of the President of the Court inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General – Letter not producing binding legal effects – Application inadmissible

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 26-33)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2020 addressed to the President of the Council of the European Union inviting the Member States to provide for the appointment of an Advocate General to the post currently held by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings – Proof – Probative value – Criteria for assessment – Principles of the unfettered adduction of evidence and the unfettered evaluation of evidence

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 85)

(see para. 123)
4.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Assessment of the registrability of a sign – EU rules only taken into account – Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries – Decisions not binding EU bodies (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 2017/1001) (see para. 52)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 June 2021 –

Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO – Huawei Technologies (GT5)

(Case T‑422/20)

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark GT5 – Earlier EU figurative mark GT – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) – Relevant public – Level of attention – Action manifestly well founded)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 29)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 31)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Assessment of the likelihood of confusion – Determination of the relevant public – Attention level of the public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 34-37)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark – Word mark GT 5 and figurative mark GT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1600/2019-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe and Huawei Technologies.

Operative part

1. The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2020 (Case R 1600/2019-4) is annulled.
Action for annulment – Time limits – Decision made in the context of the compliance check of the registration dossier for the substance homosalate – Concept of publication – Publication of the decision on the website of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 59; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 59(10))

(see paras 23-25)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 July 2021 –

Dual Star Logistic and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑645/20)

(Action for annulment – Road transport – Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 – Conditions relating to the requirement of establishment of undertakings – Return of vehicles to the operational centre in the Member State of origin within a maximum period of eight weeks – Professional association – Standing to bring proceedings – Act not of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative acts and regulatory acts – Distinguishing criteria – Procedure for the adoption of the act (Arts 289(1) and (3) and 294 TFEU) (see para. 22)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 37, 38, 41)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by operators particularly affected by the contested regulation – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 43-45)

5. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 59, 60, 65)

6. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by an association of undertakings which took part in the procedure for adopting the measure – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 61, 66)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Article 1(3) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector (OJ 2020 L 249, p. 17).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to rule on Romania’s application for leave to intervene.

3. Dual Star Logistic SRL, Eliton Trans SRL, Agexim Spedition SRL, SC A & C International Road Cargo SRL and Uniunea Naţională a Transportatorilor Rutieri din România (UNTRR) shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, apart from the costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 14-17)
1.

Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility – Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint – Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 23, 24)
70

In the present case, it must be held that the ECB complied with the requirements stemming from the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Another v Trasta Komercbanka and OthersC‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923). First, after that judgment had been delivered, the ECB acknowledged that the applicant’s board of directors was still representing it for the purposes of bringing an action against the decision to withdraw the authorisation. Consequently, instead of obtaining the observations of the insolvency administrator alone, the ECB, in compliance with that judgment of the Court of Justice, also asked the lawyer authorised by the applicant’s board of directors to submit his observations in relation to the draft decision to withdraw the applicant’s authorisation. Secondly, in the letter which also included the ECB’s refusal to give the requested instruction to the insolvency administrator, the ECB granted the extension of the deadline for submitting observations requested by the lawyer authorised by the applicant’s board of directors. Thirdly, the ECB stated in that letter that the lawyer authorised by the applicant’s board of directors would be given access to the supervisory file. Consequently, the applicant’s argument that the ECB, by refusing to give the requested instruction to the insolvency administrator, failed to have regard for the consequences of the judgment of 5 November 2019, ECB and Another v Trasta Komercbanka and Others (C‑663/17 P, C‑665/17 P and C‑669/17 P, EU:C:2019:923), is manifestly unfounded.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 November 2021 –

Aurubis v Commission

(Case T‑729/20)

(Action for annulment – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Greenhouse gases – Allocation of emission allowances – Request to transfer emission certificates to Germany – Request made in the context of national proceedings for interim relief aimed at guaranteeing the effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure in Case C‑271/20 – Commission refusal decision – Locus standi – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure to act – Concept – Measure not considered satisfactory – Measure not considered satisfactory – Precluded (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 23, 28, 29)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Acts intended to have legal effects – Position adopted by the Commission on a request of a national authority – Included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 30)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision addressed to a national authority, refusing to transfer to it additional greenhouse gas emission allowances until the final outcome of national court proceedings – Action brought by the applicant in the national court proceedings – Decision not producing direct effects on that applicant’s legal position – National authority not responsible for the implementation of that decision when it was adopted – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 33, 34, 38, 40-55)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Conditions cumulative in nature – Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 35)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 8 December 2020 refusing the request of the Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle (German Emissions Trading Authority) to transfer, as a protective measure, to the national holding account of the Federal Republic of Germany or, in the alternative, to the applicant’s operator holding account, by 31 December 2020 at the latest, a number of greenhouse gas emission allowances corresponding to the number of additional allowances covered by the application filed by the applicant with the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin, Germany) for the free allocation of emission allowances for the third greenhouse gas emission allowance trading period.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, an obvious inaccuracy found in paragraph 119 of that judgment.
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 May 2021 –

Darment v Commission

(Case T‑92/21 R)

(Application for interim relief – Environment – Fluorinated greenhouse gases – Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 – Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market – Decision imposing a penalty on an undertaking that exceeded the quota allocated to it – Application for interim measures – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 26-28)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company (Arts 268, 278, 279 and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 31, 32, 36-39, 44)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Particularly strong prima facie case – No impact on the obligation to examine urgency separately (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 47)

Re:

Application under Article 279 TFEU seeking, first, an order requiring the Commission to cease applying to the applicant, as regards the year 2021 and subsequent allocation periods, a penalty under Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195), and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to allocate to the applicant a quota for the bulk import of hydrofluorocarbons for the 2021 allocation period and subsequent allocation periods.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13-16)