ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-49)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 61-64)

3. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see paras 63-64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission letter of 12 March 2010, reference number INFSO-O2/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676, confirming the findings of financial audit report 09-BA74-006 concerning the financial statements declared by the applicant over the period 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 for three contracts concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Cross Czech a.s. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission, including the costs incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.
An action which seeks the annulment of a Commission decision rejecting the applicant’s request for no post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of the customs debt for which the applicant is liable in accordance with the post-clearance decisions is devoid of purpose, in so far as, following the annulment of the post-clearance decisions by a final judicial decision, the payment of the duties at issue can no longer be claimed from the applicant and that, consequently, the applicant cannot, therefore, procure an advantage from the annulment of the contested decision.

That conclusion cannot be invalidated by the fact that the Commission decision is capable of affecting other importers. The person concerned must demonstrate a personal interest in bringing proceedings and an action for annulment may not be brought in the general interest of third parties or for the sake of legality. That personal interest must also be sufficiently direct. The mere fact that there is a third party interest in the applicant’s bringing an action for annulment of the contested decision is not sufficient, in those circumstances, to conclude that the action has not become devoid of purpose.

(see paras 19, 34, 38, 40, 57)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK)

(Case T-360/10)

‛Community trade mark — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances — No force majeure — Right of access to a court — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 11, 12)

2. Proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 22)

3. European Union law — Direct effect — National procedural rules — Conditions under which applicable — Compliance with principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see paras 29, 33-35)

4. Proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Action introduced by fax — Requirement that fax be identical with the original of the application — Aim — Proportionality (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6)) (see paras 37-40, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2010 (Case R 1795/2008-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tecnimed Srl and Ecobrands Ltd.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑116/10)

(Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — North Rhine-Westphalia Programme — Failure to comply with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

1. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Infringement of essential procedural requirements—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Condition—Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 60, 61)

2. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 68, 71)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997.

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 10675 of 23 December 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Objective 2 North Rhine-Westphalia Programme (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1120 of 7 May 1997 is annulled.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2014 —

Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑426/10 and T‑575/10 and Case T‑440/12)

‛Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Action brought against a Commission decision amending the initial decision — Decision irrelevant to the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17-22)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part

1. In Case T‑426/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. In Case T‑575/10, the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 – H v Council and Others

(Case T-271/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – National official seconded to the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina – Decision to redeploy and downgrade – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility – Lack of 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 – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-15)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Application for interim measures – Identification of the defendant – Action against the Council, the Commission and the EU Police Mission without legal personality – Possibility of clarification by the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Art. 263, first and fourth paras, TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1); Council Decision 2009/906) (see paras 18-21)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Detailed statement of the subject-matter (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 104)(3)) (see para. 22)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings – None (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of 7 April 2010 of the Head of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina having the effect of downgrading and redeploying the applicant.

Operative part

1. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission are considered to be the only defendants.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2010 – Xeda International and Pace International v Commission

(Case T-71/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Directive 91/414/EEC – Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of urgency

1. 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Irreparable alteration in market share – Included – Conditions – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39, 41-48)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Decision not to include a substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414 – Risk normally having to be borne by an undertaking operating in the phytopharmaceuticals market – Damage not serious in nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 55-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 9 March 2011 – Castiglioni v Commission

(Case T-591/10 R)

Interim proceedings – Public contracts – Public procurement procedure – Rejection of a bid – Application for stay of execution – Failure to have regard to the formal requirements – 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure – Loss not in itself constituting serious damage – Assessment – Size of the undertaking taken into account – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14, 17)

3. Application for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Factual and legal grounds not set out in the application and pleadings – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 18)

4. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Lodging of an additional pleading to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the interim measures procedure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and (3) and 109) (see para. 20)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures made in the tendering procedure concerning a multiple framework agreement for works to construct, restructure and maintain buildings and infrastructure at the European Commission Joint Research Centre’s Ispra (Italy) site.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 Brinkmann v Germany

(Case T-261/10 R)

Interim measure – Clear lack of jurisdiction

Application for interim measures – Application linked to an action against a Member State – General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see para. 7)

Re:

APPLICATION seeking to suspend application of Paragraphs 47 and 48(a) of the German Federal code on notaries (Bundesnotarordnung) with regard to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 July 2011 – Fapricela v Commission

(Case T-398/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Decision of the Commission imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application to suspend operation – Financial damage – Lack of exceptional circumstances – Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-24)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof – Refusal of banks to provide such a bank guarantee – Admissibility as evidence of an objective impossibility of obtaining such a financial instrument – Duty to provide concrete and precise indications supported by detailed and certified documentary evidence (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-28)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account of the position of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-32, 34-35)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 43)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Pre-stressing steel), inter alia in so far as it imposes the obligation to set up a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-478/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 37-38, 44)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 40-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/419/EU of 28 July 2010 renewing the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1), authorising foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of field maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 2004/657/EC (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 – ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-452/10)

Action for annulment – Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Third party capacity in relation to the parties – Charity represented by one of its trustees – Inadmissibility – Trustee being neither an employee nor a director entrusted with the daily management of the association – No effect (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 15-20)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Council decision of 26 July 2010 refusing to grant the applicant full access to an opinion of the Council’s Legal Service (Document No 6865/09) on the European Parliament’s draft amendments to the Commission’s proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

2. ClientEarth is ordered to bear its own costs and also pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (Judge hearing the application for interim measures) of 8 September 2011 – Fulmen v Council

(Case T-439/10 R)

Interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

1. 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 – Weighing-up of the interests – 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. 104(2)) (see paras 13-16)

2. 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 – Application for interim measures brought several months after the main action – No new circumstances – No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 19, 21-31)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings – No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 32-33)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the following contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant:

– Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39);

– Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25);

– Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81);

– Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.