ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 37-40)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 59-60)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Summary of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see paras 61-62)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages (Arts 235 EC, 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-73)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 74-80)

6. Application 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 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 82)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for suspension of the operation of the EMEA’s decision of 28 November 2008 rejecting the application for a product-specific waiver concerning perflubutane and, secondly, for the grant of interim measures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions for granting

–

Application to extend a measure suspending operation of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 4, 11-15

)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Proceedings time-barred – Force majeure – Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45)

The concepts of ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice require there to be abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable, even if all due care is taken. Those concepts both contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the person in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the person must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits. Thus, the concept of force majeure does not apply to a situation in which, objectively, a diligent and prudent person would have been able to take the necessary steps before the expiry of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. That applies where the main reason for the lateness of an appeal may lie in the fact that the appellant’s counsel used a ‘registered bundle not suitable for international mail’ and that he therefore did not comply with some of the criteria enabling the postal service operator to guarantee the correct delivery of the item.

(see paras 19-20)

See: 209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission [1984] ECR 3089, para. 22; C‑195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I‑5619, paras 31 and 32; C‑325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM [2005] ECR I‑403, para. 25; C‑242/07 P Belgium v Commission [2007] ECR I‑9757, para. 17
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see para. 24)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Not constituting unlawfulness (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC; Art. 141 EA) (see paras 29-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Ms Brigit Lind is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – Refusal on the part of the applicant to amend his claims as a result – Application devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 230 EC)

Summary

If, in an action for annulment, the subject-matter of the action disappears in the course of the proceedings, the Court cannot rule on the substance, since such a Court decision cannot procure an advantage for the applicant. The disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings can inter alia result from the withdrawal or replacement of the contested act in the course of the proceedings.

While the legal effect of a repealed act expires, unless otherwise specified, on the date of its repeal, an act which is withdrawn and replaced disappears completely from the legal order of the European Union. Withdrawal of an act therefore normally takes effect ex tunc .

An application for annulment may, exceptionally, not become devoid of purpose despite the withdrawal of the act whose annulment is sought in circumstances where the applicant nevertheless retains a sufficient interest in obtaining a judgment formally annulling it. That is not the case where, despite the adoption by the Commission of a new decision replacing the contested decision in the course of the proceedings, the applicant explicitly states that he does not wish to adapt his claims as he is entitled to do and does not adduce any evidence to substantiate an interest in obtaining a judgment declaring the formal unlawfulness of the contested decision.

(see paras 14-18, 20)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Elmabruk Maftah is ordered to bear his own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.

3. The Council of the European Union is ordered bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission

(Case T-440/09)

‛Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Bird flu — Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector — Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — No causal link — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 9-11)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Regulation No 1010/2006 — Economic support measures — Exclusion of quail producers — Regulation No 2777/75 — Scope — Non-inclusion of quail — Independent extension of the measures to other types of poultry — Not included — Extension of the definition of ‘poultry’ in the light of Directive 2005/94 — Not included — No illegality (Council Regulation No 2777/75; Commission Regulation No 1010/2006; Council Directive 2005/94) (see paras 15, 18, 20, 21, 27)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Burden of proof — Break in the causal link by reason of the wrongful conduct of the applicant (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 37-40)

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States (OJ 2006 L 180, p. 3), in so far as that regulation does not provide for such measures in favour of poultry farmers active in the farming and marketing of quails.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2009 – Hansen v Commission

(Case T-295/09 R)

Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art.104(2)) (see paras 3-4)

Re:

APPLICATION for an interim measure requiring the Commission to pay the applicant sums to support initiatives to promote the right of handicapped persons to equality and non-discrimination in professional life.

Operative part

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

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — Connefroy and Others v Commission

(Case T‑327/09)

Action for annulment — State aid — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by the actual beneficiaries of aid granted under that scheme and having to be repaid — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 230(4) EC) (see paras 21-23)

2. 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 — Imprecision as to the amount, date and subject matter of the measures which benefited the applicants — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 31, 33)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/402/EC of 28 January 2009 on the ‘contingency plans’ in the fruit and vegetable sector implemented by France (OJ 2009 L 127, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 September 2011 – Elosta v Commission

(Case T-102/09)

Action for annulment – Period for commencing proceedings – Out of time – No force majeure – No excusable error – Inadmissibility

1. 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)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to bear his own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.
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 – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-16)

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 – Irremediable change in market share – Included (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30, 36-39, 41)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being remedied by the award of compensation in the main action (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 44)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 on a plan to grant compensation for public service costs of EUR 59 million for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine (France).

Operative part

Operative part:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – 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 13-15)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – No undermining of the right freely to exercise the parliamentary mandate and the proper function of the Parliament – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19, 26-27, 31-32)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures of the Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – Included (Art. 230, first para., EC; Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities) (see para. 24)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 7 September 2010 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application 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 imposed 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 21-23, 25-30, 43)

2. Application 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 imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking account of the situation 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 35-37, 41-42)

3. Application 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. 52)

Subject of the case

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) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to establish a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.