ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceeding — Refusal on the part of the applicant to amend his claims as a result — Application devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114) (see paras 34-39)

2. Judicial proceedings — Costs — No need to adjudicate — Action devoid of purpose on account of the annulment and replacement of the contested decision — Decision vitiated by an obvious error of assessment or insufficient statement of reasons — Responsibility of the defendant institution (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 87(6)) (see paras 41, 43-46)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/254/EC of 7 June 2006 on State aid C 25/05 (ex NN 21/05) implemented by the Slovak Republic for Fruncona Košice a.s. (OJ 2007 L 112, p. 14).

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Frucona Košice a.s.

3. St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. is ordered to bear its own costs.
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

8 May 2008

Case T-92/07 P

Jacques Frankin and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials and members of the temporary staff – Pension – Transfer of pension rights – Appeal manifestly inadmissible – Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 16 January 2007 in Case F‑3/06 Frankin and Others v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking the annulment of that judgment.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Jacques Frankin and the 482 other officials and members of the temporary staff of the Commission whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment are to bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission in the context of the present instance.

Summary

Appeals – Pleas in law – Error of law relied on not identified – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1); Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c))

It is clear from Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that an appeal against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which, without even including an argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment under appeal, merely reproduces the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal. Such an appeal amounts in reality to no more than a request for re-examination of the application already submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, which falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.

(see paras 21-22)

See C‑352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I‑5291, paras 34 and 35; C‑345/00 P FNAB and Others v Council [2001] ECR I‑3811, para. 30; C‑248/99 P France v Monsanto and Commission [2002] ECR I‑1, para. 68; C‑488/01 P Martinez v Parliament [2003] ECR I‑13355, para. 40
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

14 December 2007

Case T-311/07 P

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Decision against which an appeal may be brought – Order deleting certain passages in a pleading – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case F-49/06 Nijs v Court of Auditors (not published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Mr Bart Nijs is ordered to pay his own costs.

Summary

Appeals – Admissibility – Decisions against which an appeal may be brought

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 145)

An appeal brought against an order of the Court of First Instance deleting certain passages in a pleading must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible pursuant to Article 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Such an order does not fall within the categories of decisions against which an appeal may be brought within the meaning of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.

(see paras 6-10)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2008 – BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów and Others v Commission

(Case T-208/07)

Action for annulment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading – National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 – Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions – Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria (Arts 175 EC, 176 EC and 230, para. 4, EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 28-55)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Turów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Opole S.A., Elektrownia ‘Kozienice’ S.A., Elektrownia Połaniec S.A. – Grupa Electrabel Polska, Elektrownia ‘Rybnik’ S.A., Elektrownia Skawina S.A., Elektrownia ‘Stalowa Wola’ S.A., Południowy Koncern Energetyczny S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Dolna Odra S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Ostrołęka S.A. and Zespół Elektrowni Pątnów-Adamów-Konin S.A. to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 27 June 2008 – Denka International v Commission

(Case T-30/07)

Action for annulment – Directive 2006/92/EC – Maximum levels for dichlorvos residues – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissible

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Directive 2006/92 establishing maximum levels for dichlorvos (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 91/414; Commission Directive 2006/92, Art. 2(b) and Annex II) (see paras 54-80)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending the annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos, ethion and folpet (OJ 2006 L 311, p. 31).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2008 – Italy v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-285/07)

Procedural step – Objection of inadmissibility – Partial inadmissibility of the action – Non-attributability of the contested measure to the Parliament

Actions for annulment – Action brought against a competition notice published by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for filling posts vacant at the Parliament – Measure exclusively imputable to the Commission – Action brought against the Commission and the Parliament – Partial inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC; Staff Regulations, Art. 91a; Decision of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman 2002/620, Art. 4) (see paras 18-19, 21-23, 25-27)

Re:

ANNULMENT of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 20 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of ‘Information Science (Library/Documentation)’, published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 8 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Parliament.
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 – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-20)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of a decision requiring a Member State to withdraw the conditions imposed on an undertaking – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 62)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 71-74, 80)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 82-86)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2007) 5913 final of 5 December 2007 (Case No COMP/M.4685 – Enel/Acciona/Endesa) in relation to a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

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

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication of the measure in question (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 29-30)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 30)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Locus standi – Assessment by the Community judicative alone (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings made by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 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 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders it not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA;

3. Orders Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Medical expenses – Serious illness – Reimbursement at 100% – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on Sickness Insurance, Art. 28 and Annex I, Section IV)

The reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations presupposes that the illness concerned is regarded as one of the illnesses expressly referred to in that provision, or that the appointing authority recognises the illness as being of a comparable seriousness to the illnesses referred to in that provision. To that end, it is manifestly for the official concerned to state which is the illness in question and to produce supporting documents. Under Article 28 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities applications for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by original supporting documents, and according to Section IV of Annex I to those Rules applications to have an illness recognised as of a comparable seriousness to the four illnesses referred to in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations must be accompanied by a report from the doctor treating the official concerned.

Where an application does not contain any new factor justifying the reimbursement at 100% of the medical expenses incurred by the official in question, the administration’s silence following that application does not in any way alter his legal situation resulting from the implied decision rejecting an earlier application in which he made that claim known to the administration, and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 37, 39, 41)
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 – 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 37-38, 47, 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation 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).

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

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Failure by the Commission to carry out a scientific assessment of the impact of the use of certain fishing nets on cetaceans – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC; Council Regulation No 2187/2005, Arts 9(1) and 27) (see paras 15-19)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Provision of a regulation requiring the Commission to carry out an assessment of the impact of certain fishing nets on cetaceans – Action by a fisherman belonging to a distinct sub-group of fishermen – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC) (see paras 21-26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to present within the prescribed period the scientific assessment required by Article 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound, amending Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 88/98 (OJ 2005 L 349, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Grzegorz Szomborg is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2009 — Avaessian Avaki and Others v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran and Others

(Case T-284/08 INTP)

‛Procedure — Third-party proceedings — Failure of third party to take part in the original case — No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party — Manifest inadmissibility’

Procedure — Third party proceedings — Conditions for admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 24(6) and 123(1)) (see paras 14-17)

Re:

APPLICATION by a third party to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2008 in Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II-3487 set aside.

Operative part

1. The application of the third party is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The third parties are ordered to pay their own costs as well as the costs of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included – Commission decision in the context of the administrative investigation procedure in relation to an aid measure directing the Member State to provide information – Preparatory measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 31)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Condition (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 5(2), 10(3), and 13(1)) (see paras 26, 29, 39-40)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Commission to initiate a formal investigation procedure in relation to State aid accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)

4. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Limits (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2008 – Vakakis v Commission

(Case T-41/08 R)

Community tendering procedure – Interim proceedings – Loss of an opportunity – Locus standi – Admissibility of the main application – Urgency – Measures of inquiry

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (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 – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3) (see paras 42-44)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-53, 65-66)

Re:

APPLICATION for an order granting interim measures in the context of the service tender procedure EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY for the supply of ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ in the Northern Part of Cyprus.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Dismisses the application for measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure;

3. Decides that there is no need for a decision on the application for leave to intervene;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2009 – Pannon Hőerőmű v Commission

(Case T-352/08 R)

Interim measures – State aid – Commission decision declaring State aid granted by Hungary in favour of certain electricity producers by way of electricity purchasing agreements incompatible with the common market – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency – Balancing 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-28, 30, 33)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Lodging of an additional memorandum in order to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the procedure (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 104(2) and (3), and 109) (see paras 31-32)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 40, 54)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 58-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 2223 final of 4 June 2008 on State aid granted by the Republic of Hungary by way of electricity purchasing agreements.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.