ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
22

As regards the requirement of direct concern, the applicant maintains, inter alia, that it is directly concerned by the contested decision to the extent that the latter allows the Italian Republic to apply a benefit scheme for labour costs to private undertakings providing socio-sanitary services, and that that decision produces its legal effects on a purely automatic basis, pursuant solely to EU law and without any intermediary rule, which allows the Italian Republic to apply the benefit scheme in question. The applicant recalls that the Commission does not dispute the fact that the applicant operates – as do the 21 other public entities that lodged complaints with the Commission in 2014 concerning unlawful State aid – on the Italian market for the provision of socio-sanitary services, in competition with private service providers. It is argued that public entities have the same revenue as private providers whilst having to meet higher costs on account of the national measures at issue. The complaint made by 21 public entities and the applicant quantified the scale of the actual damage that public providers of socio‑sanitary services allegedly suffer because they cannot benefit from the national measures at issue when these are reserved for private service providers. The applicant explains, in essence, that, in so far as the labour cost is the greatest cost (approximately 70% of turnover) for providers of socio-sanitary services, it suffers damage in the approximate sum of EUR 528000 per annum on account of the fact that it cannot benefit from the national measures at issue. The applicant also explains that the relevant factual situation for the purposes of Article 107 TFEU, which sets the applicant, as a public entity, against private undertakings providing identical services, is the market for providers of socio-sanitary services, as defined in the Legge n. 328 – Legge quadro per la realizzazione del sistema integrato di interventi e servizi sociali (Law No 328, known as ‘Framework law on the implementation of the integrated system of interventions and social services’), of 8 November 2000 (GURI No 265, 13 November 2000 – Ordinary Supplement to the GURI No 186, p. 1).
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 17 May 2018 –

Transtec v Commission

(Case T‑228/18 R)

(Interim measures — Public procurement — Framework contract for the provision of services to third countries benefiting from external aid — 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—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 15-18, 22, 44)

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—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence—Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company—Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs—Lack of any urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 21, 23-25, 27, 59)

3. 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 paras 26, 28)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Assessment in public procurement litigation—Serious damage—Sufficient in the case of a particularly serious prima facie case constituted by an obvious and serious illegality—Condition—Application for interim measures brought in the standstill period before conclusion of the contract with the successful tenderer (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 118(2) and (3); Commission Regulation No 1268/2012, Art. 171(1)) (see paras 29-32, 47)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, a suspension of the application of the decision of the European Commission of 26 March 2018 rejecting the tender of the applicant and awarding ten tenderers the contract relating to Lot No 3 of the ‘Framework contract for the implementation of external aid 2018 (FWC SIEA 2018) 2017/S 128-260026’, with reference EuropeAid/138778/DH/SER/Multi and, on the other, an order that the Commission provisionally include the applicant among the selected tenderers.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 –

ZE v Parliament

(Case T‑603/18 R)

(Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Suspension of an official without the withholding of remuneration — Application for interim measures — Damage to reputation — 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 10-13)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Damage to the applicant’s reputation — Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings — None (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 19-24)

Re:

Application under Articles 287 and 279 TFEU seeking (i) the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European parliament of 25 September 2018 adopting a fixed-term suspension measure without the withholding of remuneration against the applicant; and (ii) an order that the Parliament prevent and not repeat further ‘possible leaks in the media’ involving the applicant’s name, and requesting the applicant to withdraw all personal files from the information that supervisors have, where relevant, already collected in his office.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 March 2019 –

Legutko and Poręba v Parliament

(Case T‑156/18)

(Action for failure to act — Institutional law — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Article 130 — Annex II — Question for written answer — Request that the question be forwarded to the Council — Notification of the decision finding the question inadmissible — Invitation to act — Position of the Parliament — Application for an injunction — Inadmissible)

1. Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para. TFEU) (see paras 23, 43)

2. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Concept — No action taken — Measure not considered satisfactory — Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 24, 37)

3. Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Concept — Refusal to act in accordance with the invitation to act — Included (Art. 265, second para. TFEU) (see para. 30)

4. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Not permissible (Arts 265 and 266 TFEU) (see paras 47-49)

Re:

Action under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to forward Question for written answer P-003358/17 to the Council of the European Union, in breach of Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament and the provisions of Annex II thereto.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 March 2019 –

Herholz v EUIPO (#)

(Case T‑631/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark # — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Application for variation — Manifest inadmissibility)

EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Actions before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Variation of a decision of the Office — Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 66(1), 71(1) and 72(3))

(see paras 12-15)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 445/2018-2), regarding an application for registration of the word sign # as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 March 2019 –

Solwindet las Lomas v Commission

(Case T‑190/18)

(Actions for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme for renewable energies — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision finding the aid scheme compatible with the internal market — Action brought by a recipient — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Burden of proof (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

2. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Decision not in principle adversely affecting the applicant — Obligation on the General Court to examine the possible binding legal effects of the Commission’s assessment (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 34)

3. Action for annulment — Action by the beneficiary of a State aid directed against a decision of the Commission declaring it compatible with the internal market — Interest in bringing proceedings — Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 44)

4. Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action by the beneficiary of a State aid directed against the decision of the Commission declaring it compatible with the internal market — Action not likely to benefit that company — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, 4th para. TFEU) (see paras 53, 62-68)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7384 final of 10 November 2017 relating to State aid SA.40348 (2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Spain (Support for electricity generation from renewable energy sources, cogeneration and waste).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain or EDP España.

3. Solwindet las Lomas, SL shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 February 2019 –

Front Polisario v Council

(Case T‑376/18)

(Action for annulment — International agreements — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco — Decision authorising the opening of negotiations between the European Union and Morocco for the purpose of amending the partnership agreement — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision authorising the opening of negotiations between the European Union and a third country for the purpose of amending the partnership agreement in the fisheries sector — Action brought by a national liberation movement — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility

(Arts 218(3) and (4) and 263, 4th para. TFEU; Morocco Partnership Agreement)

(see paras 24, 26-29)

Re:

Action under Article 263 for annulment of the Council’s decision of 16 April 2018, authorising the opening of negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco for the purpose of amending the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and concluding a protocol implementing that agreement.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the French Republic and the European Commission.

3. The Front populaire pour la libération de la Saguia-el-Hamra et du Rio de Oro (Front Polisario) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 September 2019 –

Poland v Commission

(Case T‑703/18)

(Action for annulment — European Social Fund — Operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’ — Letter notifying a final audit report — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Letter notifying a final audit report relating to an operational programme co-financed by the European Social Fund — Measure not definitively laying down the position of the competent institution — Taken into account by the receiving Member State in order to adopt internal measures — Irrelevant — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1303/2013)

(see paras 34-38, 62, 63, 68)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFUE for the annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in its letter of 17 September 2018 notifying the Republic of Poland of the final audit report relating to the operational programme ‘Knowledge Education Development’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. It is not necessary to adjudicate on the Czech Republic’s application to intervene.

3. The Republic of Poland and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 September 2019 –

Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)

(Case T‑575/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark The Inner Circle — Earlier EU word mark InnerCircle — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 17, 18)

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 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 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, At. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

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 — Figurative mark The Inner Circle and word mark InnerCircle (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 23, 28, 38, 40, 44, 45, 47)

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 — Similarity between the goods or services in question — Criteria for assessment — Complementary nature of the goods or services (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 34)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 (Case R 1402/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Shore Capital International and Circle Imperium.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 May 2019 –

Jap Energeticas y Medioambientales v Commission

(Case T‑145/19 R)

(Application for interim measures — Environment — Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) — Project LIFE 11 ENV/ES/000593-H2AL RECYCLING — Recovery of sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 19, 21, 22)

2. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 20, 29, 30, 32)

3. 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 — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 25, 26, 28, 36-38)

4. 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 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 27)

5. 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 — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 31, 33-35)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision BUDG/DGA 1/C4/CB/3241812545 of 14 January 2019 regarding the recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 82 750.96 plus default interest.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
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 — 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 16-19)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T‑62/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1) 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 23, 24, 26, 27, 31, 32)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 December 2019 –

ZU v EEAS

(Case T‑154/19)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Mission expenses —Act not open to challenge — Act not adversely affecting an official — Irregular nature of the pre-litigation procedure — Premature action — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 27, 28)

2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Compulsory — Action brought before rejection of the claim — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(2)) (see para. 29)

3. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official –Meaning — No preparatory act (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 34)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the part of the decision of 30 November 2018 by which the EEAS Appointing Authority rejected the applicant’s complaint of 27 July 2018, inasmuch as it implicitly refused the request concerning mission expenses submitted by the applicant on 26 February 2018.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.