ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 – Bank Melli Iran v Council

(Case T-390/08 R)

Applications for interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran – Council decision – Measure to freeze funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency – Absence of serious and irreparable damage

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23, 25-27)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 24)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC; Council Regulation No 423/2007) (see para. 39)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 40-43)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Bank Melli Iran is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures.
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 Harmonisation 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 Harmonisation 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.

2. infeurope is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – Stowarzyszenie Autorów ZAiKS v Commission

(Case T-398/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

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 28-29,40-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision C(2008) 3435 final of the Commission of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC), to the extent that the applicant is affected.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 2009 – Cattin v Commission

(Case T-194/08)

Non-contractual liability – EDF – List of exporters eligible to receive payment of debts owed to them by the Central African Republic – Not included on the list – Limitation period – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – 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 for compensation for damage caused by a Community institution – Failure to comply with requirements – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 55-58)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the reality of the damage – Not permissible (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 69-71, 82)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following a Commission decision not to include them on the list of exporters eligible to receive payment, via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF), in respect of the debts owed to them by a State body of the Central African Republic.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2009 — Biofrescos v Commission

(Case T-159/09 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Submission of the application — Inadmissibility — Financial loss — Lack of urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 12)

2. Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 12-15, 18, 19)

3. Application 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 22, 23, 27, 28)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93) (see paras 29-32)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the recovery of import duties not yet demanded of the applicant, in so far as that recovery was ordered by Commission Decision C(2009) 72 final of 16 January 2009, finding post-clearance recovery of those duties justified, and remission of those duties not justified, in the applicant’s case.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Interim measures

–

Main action dismissed in the meantime

–

Request which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

Application for interim measures to ensure compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following allegedly unlawful conduct by a Member of the Commission and certain agents of that institution.

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The applicant is ordered bear his own costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 — Novácke chemické závody v Commission

(Case T-352/09 R)

‛Interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of enforcement of a measure — Lack of urgency’

1. Application 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 — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Damage having already arisen at the time of the adoption of the decision by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Lack of urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-44)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Applicant company losing an opportunity for redress — Purely hypothetical damage depending on the occurrence of future and uncertain events — Lack of urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-51)

4. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Exemption from the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for fine not being recovered immediately — Conditions for granting — Exceptional circumstances — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs — Burden of proof (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of enforcement of the Commission decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium-based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

28 October 2010

Case T-32/09 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pre-litigation procedure — Appeal manifestly unfounded — Cross-appeal limited to costs)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order. Cross-appeal brought by the Commission.

Held: The appeal is dismissed as clearly unfounded. The cross-appeal is dismissed as clearly inadmissible. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs in the cross-appeal.

Summary

1. Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Implied decision rejecting a request not challenged in good time — Subsequent express decision — Confirmatory measure — Claim barred by lapse of time

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

2. Appeals — Subject-matter — Appeal regarding only the amount of the costs and the party ordered to pay them — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2))

1. A decision expressly rejecting a request which follows the implied rejection of the same request is in the nature of a purely confirmatory measure and therefore does not open, for the official concerned, a new period for lodging a complaint, since the second indent of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations, which provides that ‘where a complaint is rejected by express decision after being rejected by implied decision but before the period for lodging an appeal has expired, the period for lodging the appeal shall start to run afresh’, does not apply by analogy to the stage when the request has been submitted and before the complaint is lodged.

(see para. 20)

See: T-200/99 Martinelli v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-253 and II-1161, para. 11 and the case-law cited therein

2. The rule laid down in Article 11(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal may not relate only to the amount of the costs or the party ordered to pay them applies without any distinction according to the nature of the appeal or how it is lodged.

(see para. 44)

See: C-470/00 P Parliament v Ripa di Meana and Others [2004] ECR I-4167, paras 81 and 82
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Measure not notified to the applicant (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 47, 63

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to annul the Commission’s decision of 13 August 2008 to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), in relation to a concentration transaction between the applicant and Autostrade SpA (Case COMP/M.4388 – Abertis/Autostrade).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Abertis Infraestructuras, SA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Concept

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Letter from the Commission setting out its position as to the action to be taken following the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency

–

Not included (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 15, 17-18, 20, 23-24, 31-32, 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision in the letter of the Commission addressed to the applicant on 6 May 2009 in the context of the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of Lunivia, inasmuch as it concerns classification of the active substance eszopiclone.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie v Commission

(Case T-90/09)

‛State aid — Action for annulment — Investment of the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex — Decision finding that there was no State aid — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision closing an aid proceeding — Competitor of the aid recipient — Right to bring an action — Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6018 final of 21 October 2008 on the investment made by the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Gemeente Rotterdam and Ahoy’ Rotterdam NV.

3. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 — Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie v Commission

(Case T-90/09)

‛State aid — Action for annulment — Investment of the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex — Decision finding that there was no State aid — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision closing an aid proceeding — Competitor of the aid recipient — Right to bring an action — Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6018 final of 21 October 2008 on the investment made by the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Gemeente Rotterdam and Ahoy’ Rotterdam NV.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Regulation imposing restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation continuing to produce effects until its repeal – No effect (Art. 263, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1); Commission Regulation No 1330/2008) (see paras 20-21, 37)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Mandatory (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 101(1)(a) and (b)) (see paras 29, 38, 41)

3. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Concept – Error by the applicant’s lawyer in calculating time-limits – Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 101(1)) (see paras 31-32)

4. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Previous order allowing the applicant legal aid – No effect (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 96(4)) (see paras 35-36)
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 January 2010 – Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

(Case T-446/09 R)

Interim measures – Programme Life – Reimbursement of a part of the amounts paid – Recovery order – Debit note – Application for suspension of enforcement – Financial loss – Exceptional circumstances – 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 – 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 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage capable of arising at any moment – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation capable of seriously compromising the carrying out by a public educational establishment of its public service functions (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21, 25-33)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decisions contained, respectively, in Commission letter D (2009) 224268 of 9 September 2009, concerning a recovery order, and Commission debit note No 3230909105 of 11 September 2009 for an amount of EUR 327 500.35.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 – Dover v Parliament

(Case T-149/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Inadmissibility – No urgency

1. Application 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)

2. 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 – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43, 44 and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 14, 18-19, 21)

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 (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-29)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision of the European Parliament to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Need for the Parliament to bring proceedings before a national court having jurisdiction where voluntary payment refused – Possibility of the national court suspending operation of the said decision until resolution of the matter on the substance before the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance – No urgency (Arts 230 EC, 234 CE and 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not capable of being better compensated for in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 37)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Decision D(2009) 4639 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of allowances unduly paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of his parliamentary assistance expenses, of the debit note based on that decision and of any decision taken with a view to offsetting the amount claimed against payment of other parliamentary allowances due to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.