ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2018 –

Estamede v ECB

(Case T‑124/17)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and Monetary Policy - ECB - Restructuring of Greek Government debt - Involvement of a Greek public law body managing a pension fund for engineers and contractors carrying out public works - Absence of interest or assignment of the right to compensation - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions for damages—Locus standi—Trade association—Own interest or transfer of the right to compensation (Art. 268 TFEU) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Judicial proceedings—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—Production of evidence—Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (f)) (see paras 18, 20, 21, 24, 25)

3. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Statement of the forms of order sought—No clear and precise formulation (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(e)) (see para. 26)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the Eniaios Foreas Koinonikis Asfalisis (EFKA) and, more particularly, its professional branch of engineers and contractors carrying out public works, the Tameio Syntaxeon Michanikon kai Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon (TSMEDE) (Tomeis Michanikon Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon), and its affiliates who retired following, in particular, the adoption by the ECB of Decision 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on the eligibility of marketable debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer (OJ 2012 L 77, p. 19), and other measures of the ECB connected with the restructuring of Greek Government debt.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
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 court hearing the application for interim relief–Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 12-15)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 2018 –

Unigroup v EUIPO — Pronova Laboratories (nailicin)

(Case T‑587/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark nailicin — Earlier Benelux word mark NAILCLIN — Relative ground for refusal — Copy of the certificate of registration of the earlier mark — Rule 19(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 7(2)(a)(ii) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430) — Taking into account of a document submitted in conjunction with the notice of opposition — Rule 19(4) Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 7(5) of Delegated Regulation 2017/1430) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

EU trade mark — Observations of third parties and opposition — Examination of the opposition — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Interpretation of Rule 19, paragraph 4, of Regulation No 2868/95

(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15(3), 18(1), 19(1), (2)(a)(ii), and (4) and 20(1))

(see paras 28, 30-32)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 (Case R 2359/2016-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pronova Laboratories and Unigroup.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Locus standi—Action brought by a company no longer having legal personality at the time the action was brought following a merger agreement—No evidence of legal existence—Manifest inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 177(4))

(see paras 16, 18-20, 22-27)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 September 2018 –

RE v Commission

(Case T‑257/17)

(Action for annulment and damages — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Implied refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — Explicit refusal of access — Modification of the form of order — Article 86(4)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings — Modification of the pleas in the course of proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Transposition of the initial pleas in law — Conditions (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 86(4)(a) and (b)) (see paras 40, 41)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 54-56)

3. Judicial proceedings — 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 — Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution — Application for compensation for non-pecuniary damage — Minimum requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 61-63)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of an implied decision of the European Commission rejecting the confirmatory application of the applicant of 20 January 2017 for access to documents and decision C(2017) 3718 final of the Secretary General of the Commission of 24 May 2017, in so far as it refuses access to a note concerning the applicant’s recruitment, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the refusal of access to those documents and of the delay in examining the application for access to the said documents.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting the confirmatory application of RE of 20 January 2017 for access to documents.

2. The action is dismissed for the remainder.
As regards an application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision suspending the marketing authorisation for a product, the applicant’s assertion that third States have adopted measures suspending authorisations for the product at issue cannot constitute particular circumstances from which the seriousness of the harm may be inferred. Even if that allegation were to prove to be founded, that would not call into question the fact that those decisions were adopted by independent authorities and that it falls to the applicant potentially to bring the appropriate actions in those legal systems in order to challenge the lawfulness of those decisions.

As regards an application for suspension of operation of a Commission decision suspending the marketing authorisation for a product, the condition of urgency is not met where the applicant fails to provide the judge hearing the application for interim measures with the essential elements enabling him to examine the seriousness of the alleged effects so far as concerns the contractual obligations to which the applicant is subject and the costs resulting from the need to replace the banned product, whilst merely making general assertions without stating, for example, the size of the contracts at issue in the light of its activity as a whole, the estimated amount of the costs attributable to the substitution of the banned product or the penalty incurred on account of the possible failure to perform those contracts.

In that connection, although the lack of information concerning the substitution costs generated by the contractual obligations referred to by the applicant does not allow the increase in the alleged harm to be assessed, the existence of the contracts at issue nevertheless suggests that, to a certain extent, the applicant has a means of reducing the scale of that harm and preserving the market share that it fears it will lose on the markets for similar products in the Member States concerned and outside the European Union. In that context, it may be observed that, in the light of the average duration of proceedings before the General Court, the judgment on the substance in the present case will probably be delivered within two years. Consequently, depending on the term of those contracts, the applicant may potentially know where it stands on the lawfulness of the contested decision before their expiry.

(see paras 52, 53)
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 para. 10)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 November 2018 –

Stichting Against Child Trafficking v Commission

(Case T‑658/17)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act — Legal person informing OLAF of potentially reprehensible conduct — OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure)

1. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Lack of legal personality — OLAF’s decisions — Attributability to the Commission (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Decision 1999/352) (see para. 17)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — OLAF’s decision not to open an investigation — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2013, Arts 1(1) and 5(2) and (4)) (see paras 19-24)

3. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Possibility to set aside the admissibility conditions for an action by reliance on an infringement of fundamental rights — None (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129) (see para. 27)

4. EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment against measures not producing binding legal effects inadmissible — Possibility of parties challenging such measures by an action in non-contractual liability of the Union (Arts 263 and 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 29)

5. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Admissibility criteria — Rejection of the application for annulment against the contested decision leading to rejection of the claim for failure to act (Arts 263, third para. and 265 TFEU) (see paras 34, 35)

6. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

7. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Burden thereof — Taking into account of the requirements of equity — Order that costs be paid by the unsuccessful party — Account taken of its charitable status acting in the interests of children — Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(1)) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

Request on the basis of Articles 263 and 265 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 3 August 2017 not to open an administrative investigation in Case OC/2017/0451 and, second, an order requiring OLAF to open an administrative investigation and, depending on the findings of that investigation, to refer the case to the national law enforcement authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings, and/or to the institutions of the European Union for the purpose of an administrative procedure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
62

In that regard, in the first place, it must be stated that it is apparent from the documents in the file that, in the response of 21 November 2016 to the email sent to him by the Commission to schedule the meeting of 28 November 2018, the applicant’s CEO, Mr S, stated the following: ‘We will come (our lawyer [Mr Schwarz] and myself) on 28 November at 9:30.’ Accordingly, it is clearly indicated to the Commission’s officials that Mr Schwarz acted as the applicant’s lawyer during the meeting. Moreover, Mr Schwarz and Mr S were the only participants in the meeting with the Commission’s officials and Mr Schwarz did not give the impression that he also represented another party during that meeting or that he acted on his own behalf. The applicant’s description of the role of Mr Schwarz at the meeting, namely ‘to assist Mr [S] in the event that the discussion concerned a legal and technical subject with regard to the issues relating to State aid and competition law’, is entirely consistent with that of the role of a lawyer acting on behalf of his client. Likewise, the fact that, as the applicant states, Mr Schwarz’s participation was ‘limited to presenting his disagreement with [the Commission official’s] view that the European Commission [was] not bound by the rules on State aid, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty’, corroborates that role as the applicant’s lawyer.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 4 May 2018 –

Czarnecki v Parliament

(Case T‑230/18 R)

(Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Vice-President of the European Parliament — Decision of the Parliament to end a Vice-President’s term of office — Application for interim measures — Injunction — Inadmissibility)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 9-12)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Admissibility criteria—Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought—Negative administrative decision of the European Parliament approving the early termination of service of the function of the Vice-President of the Parliament carried out by the applicant—Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation—No legal interest in bringing proceedings—Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 16, 17, 19))

3. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Detailed statement of the subject-matter of the application (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 23-26)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking, first, a suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 7 February 2018 approving the early cessation of the applicant’s role as Vice-President of the Parliament and, secondly, an order requiring the Parliament to allow the applicant to remain in office as Vice-President of the Parliament.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought — Application for a suspension of the application of a decision of an institution denying access to its premises to a person who does not have a positive security notice and the surrender of his or her access badge to that institution — Incompetence of the Union court to grant the measures requested — No interest in obtaining these measures — Rejection (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 156 to 158) (see paras 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 50-55)
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2018 –

CdT v EUIPO

(Case T‑417/18 R)

(Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Translation services required for the functioning of EUIPO — Use of external contractors — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 23, 25, 26)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation—Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 29, 31)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Serious and irreparable damage—Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 30)

4. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see para. 33)

5. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Damage foreseeable with a reasonable degree of probability (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 36)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, first, for the suspension of operation of EUIPO’s decisions relating to measures intended to make it possible to use service providers other than the CdT for the translation services required for its functioning and, secondly, for an order requiring EUIPO to publish in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union a notice suspending its call for tenders concerning the provision of translation services and not to sign contracts relating to that call for tenders.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2019 –

SFIE-PE v Parliament

(Case T‑401/18)

(Action for annulment — Institutional law — Interpreters’ strike — Measures requisitioning interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Measure not open to challenge — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision replacing in the course of proceedings a contested decision since withdrawn — Admissibility of new pleas — Limits — Hypothetical measures not yet adopted (see paras 29, 30, 32)

2. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Limits — Compliance with the conditions governing the admissibility of an action (Art. 6(1) TEU; Art. 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7)) (see para. 33)

3. Action 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. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 44, 56, 61, 62)

4. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Inadmissibility of the application for annulment entailing inadmissibility of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 66)

Re:

Application under Articles 263 and 268 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018 and the subsequent decisions of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5,10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament make good the non-pecuniary harm caused by those decisions assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10000.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

3. The Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) shall pay the costs, including the costs of the interim proceedings, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene made by the Council.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 –

Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission

(Case T‑178/18)

(Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Active substance glyphosate — Renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Action brought by the natural or legal person to whom the contested measure is addressed — Notion of addressee (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 38)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria (see para. 41)

3. Agriculture — Approximation of laws — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Regulation No 1107/2009 — Renewal of authorisation — Intervention attributable to the Member State (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Art. 43(5) and (6)) (see para. 54)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Act of the Commission affecting a regional authority (Art. 114(6) TFEU) (see paras 66, 67)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011(OJ 2017 L 333, p.10).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Justice Pesticides, the Walloon Region, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL), Nature & Progrès Belgique (Nature & Progrès), SomeOfUs, WeMove Europe (WeMove.EU), Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Helm AG, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh TKI D.O.O. and Albaugh UK Ltd.

3. The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.