ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — US Steel Košice v Commission

(Case T-22/07)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Act of Accession — Condition imposed on the beneficiary to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ — Commission letter interpreting the condition as applying to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets from the date of their accession — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measure producing binding legal effects — Letter from a Commission department to a Member State concerning the interpretation of a term and inviting the Member State to discuss — Not included (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 November 2006, inasmuch as it interprets the condition imposed on the applicant to limit its sales of flat products in the ‘enlarged EU’ as applying also, from , to the Bulgarian and Romanian markets.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. US Steel Košice s.r.o. is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive No 91/414; Commission Directive No 2007/52) (see paras 39-52)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see paras 53-55)

3. Preliminary rulings – Assessment of validity – Declaration of invalidity of a Community measure – Effects (Arts 233 EC and 234 EC) (see para 56)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Directive 2007/52/EC of 16 August 2007 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethoprophos, pirimiphos-methyl and fipronil as active substances (OJ 2007 L 214, p. 3).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders that there is no need to rule on the applications to intervene;

3. Orders Union nationale de l’apiculture française, Deutscher Berufs- und Erwerbsimkerbund eV, Unione nazionale associazioni apicoltori italiani and Asociación Galega de Apicultura to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 October 2007 – MB Immobilien v Commission

(Case T-120/07 R)

Interim measures – State Aid to the new Länder – Obligation to recover aid – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Urgency – Balancing of interests

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the company’s group situation – Control held by a natural person not a legal person – Not relevant (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33-38)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 45-46)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2007/492/EC of 24 January 2007 on State Aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) implemented by Germany for the Biria-Gruppe (OJ 2007 L 183, p. 27).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 May 2007 – Polimeri Europa v Commission

(Case T-12/07 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Application for further interim measures – Order addressed to third parties – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33-35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Application that the Commission be ordered to adopt in relation to a third party, not party to the proceedings, measures outside its competence – Inadmissibility (Art. 243 EC; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 8, 9 and 23(2)(b) and (c); Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Art. 8) (see paras 50-54)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(d) and 104(3)) (see paras 56-58)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the measure sought (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 59)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures requesting, first, an order requiring the Commission to prohibit Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, on pain of a penalty, from using in any way or for any purpose whatsoever the information contained in the non-confidential version of the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 adopted in proceedings under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 – Butadiene Rubber (BR) and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber (ESBR)) which was forwarded to that company as a result of the Commission’s decision COMP/F2/D (2006) 1095 of 6 November 2006 and, secondly, an order that the Commission forward to Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin a copy of the order to be given and, lastly, such other or further measures as the President of the Court may deem necessary.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008 – Kronberger v Parliament

(Case T-18/07)

Action for annulment – Act concerning election to the European Parliament – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Lack of jurisdiction of the Court – Inadmissibility

1. European Parliament – Verification of members’ credentials – Decision dismissing a challenge to the election of a Member of the European Parliament (Act concerning election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Art. 12) (see paras 43-44)

2. Actions for annulment – Pleas in law – Submissions founded on the incompatibility with Community law of national provisions (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 45)

3. Community law – Direct effect – Individual rights – Safeguarding by national courts (Art. 10 EC) (see para. 49)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2005 rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s challenge relating to the election of Andreas Mölzer as a Member of the European Parliament, submitted in accordance with the provisions of Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the representatives of the Parliament by direct universal suffrage.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2008 – Kaloudis v OHIM – FFT (RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR)

(Case T-380/07)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR – Previous national word mark Roland Garros – Late payment of the appeal fees – Decision of the Board of Appeal deeming the action to be unfounded

Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Notification – Defects in service (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68) (see paras 30-33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2007 (Case R 876/2006-4) concerning opposition proceedings between the Fédération française de tennis (FFT) and Mr Dimitrios Kaloudis.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Dimitrios Kaloudis Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark RolandGarros SPORTSWEAR for goods in Class 25 – Application No 3114477 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Fédération française de tennis (FFT) Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark Roland Garros for goods in Classes 3, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 32, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal deemed non-existent for delay in paying the appeal fee





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as being in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law and in part manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 10 April 2008 –Imelios v Commission

(Case T-97/07)

Application for annulment – Action for damages – Fifth framework programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) – Arbitration clause – Debit note – Inadmissible

1. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see para. 19)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC) (see paras 21-22, 27-30)

3. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Inadmissibility (Arts 230 EC and 238 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 32-34)

4. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see paras 39-41)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link (Art. 288, second para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see paras 45-47)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the decision adopted by the Commission following an audit report by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to recover, by way of the debit note of 17 January 2007, payments made in the framework of the contract, reference number IST-1999-10934-Assist relating to the ‘Knowledge for Help Desk Operators’ programme, concluded in the context of the Fifth Framework Programme of the Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) in the field of user-friendly information, second, a request for payment of EUR 34 368 in respect of an instalment of a grant still to be paid under the contract and, third, a claim for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 – Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission

(Case T-481/07)

State aid – System of aid granted by the Belgian authorities in support of inter-modal transport by inland waterways – Decision of the Commission not to object – Action for annulment brought by associations representing the interests of undertakings established in the port area of Rotterdam – Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring an aid scheme incompatible with the common market – Action brought by an association of undertakings – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 32-33, 36-39, 42-43, 48-49)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2007) 1939 final of 10 May 2007 not to object, following the preliminary examination procedure laid down in Article 88(3) EC, to the system of aid envisaged by the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region, Belgium) in support of inter-modal transport via inland waterways (State aid N 682/2006 – Belgium).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Deltaqings and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereninging Rotterdam are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the Commission.
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 – 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)

Subject of the case

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

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;

4. Reserves the costs, except that Agriconsulting shall bear the costs incurred by it in connection with the submission of its application for leave to intervene.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission

(Case T-188/08)

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

1. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Definition — Administrative action against a measure of the President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market in the context of the awarding of public contracts — Implied rejection decision by the Commission — Not included — Action for failure to act inadmissible (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 118) (see paras 32-36)

2. Procedure — Subject-matter of the dispute — Alteration once proceedings have been started (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 38)

3. Actions for damages — Autonomy in relation to action for annulment and action for failure to act — Manifest inadmissibility of actions for annulment and for failure to act — Compensation claim closely linked to the action for a declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 42-44)

Re:

First, application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts following the call for tenders procedure AO/026/06 of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for the provision of consultancy services, audits and studies, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, application for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 13 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Whether directly concerned

–

Commission decision granting a Member State, under the Cohesion Fund, financial assistance for the construction of a landfill site (Art. 230, para. 4, EC) (see paras 25-30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

2. Orders Koinotita Grammatikou to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing – Measure of general scope – Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 36-41, 45-48)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicants, Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc and the 16 other applicants whose names appear in the annex, shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by an owner of undertakings authorised to fatten and rear red tuna — Applicant not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 30‑35, 38-‑44)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 46)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included – Direction to provide information addressed to a Member State in State aid proceedings – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 24-26, 29, 31-32, 46)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Condition – Prior use of power to issue directions to the Member State concerned (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 5(2), 6(1), 10(3), and 13(1)) (see paras 27, 39-41)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing 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 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 34-35)

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. 88(2) EC; 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. Deutsche Post AG is ordered to pay the costs.