ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2015 —

ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑560/14)

‛Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope except for legislative measures — Regulation on measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure — Not included (Arts 114 TFEU, 192(1) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014) (see paras 21-25)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of an action where only one of those conditions absent (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing information obligations on users of genetic resources — Action by acquirers of protected varieties, claiming exemption from any information obligation by virtue of another regulation — No restricted category of economic operators — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014, Art. 4(3)(b); Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 15) (see paras 29-34, 37, 38)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Seed Association (ESA) and the Association internationale des producteurs de l’horticulture (AIPH).
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2015 —

Kafetzakis and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑38/14)

‛Application for failure to act and for damages — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Harm resulting from the reduction of bonds provided as a redundancy payment — Statements of heads of State or governments of the Euro zone and of EU institutions — Statement of the Eurogroup — Causal link with the alleged harm not substantiated — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution not called upon to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 265(2) TFEU) (see para. 26)

2. Judicial proceedings — 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 — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 30)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures for ensuring that the bonds held by the applicants as employees made redundant by Olympiaki Aeroporia would not be affected by the private sector involvement in the debt relief programme plan (PSI), reducing the value of Greek State debt, and (ii) damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants resulting from that unlawful failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter informally calling on Member State to place traditional own resources at the disposal of the EU budget — Not included — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1150/2000; Council Decision 2007/436) (see paras 24-26, 35-48, 53, 57, 60)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Responsibility of the Member States — Scope (Council Regulation No 1150/2000, Arts 2(1), 9(1), and 17(1) and (2); Council Decision 2007/436, Arts 2(1)(a), and 8(1)) (see paras 28-34)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 2351197 of 15 July 2014, by which the Commission formally demanded the Slovak Republic to make funds available to the Commission for the gross amount of EUR 1 602 457.33 (of which 25% should be deducted to cover expense incurred in collection) corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest by the first working day following the 19th day of the second month after the letter was sent.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania;

3. Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

4. Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
According to the rules governing the treatment of cases before the General Court, particularly Article 5(8) of the Instructions to the Registrar, parties are entitled to protection against the misuse of procedural documents. That protection reflects a general principle in the due administration of justice according to which parties have the right to defend their interests free from all external influences and particularly from influences on the part of members of the public.

It follows that a party who is granted access to the procedural documents of other parties is entitled to use those documents only for the purpose of pursuing his own case and for no other purpose, including that of inciting criticism on the part of the public in relation to arguments raised by other parties in the case. Thus, the objective of the prohibition on a party’s use of its right of access to procedural documents for purposes other than those connected with the pursuit of its own case is to ensure that the general principle of the due administration of justice is observed and not to protect the supposedly confidential content of those documents.

That assists in ensuring that, throughout the judicial proceedings, the exchange of argument by the parties and the deliberations of the Court in the case before it take place in an atmosphere of total serenity, and avoids exposing judicial activities to external pressure, albeit only in the perception of the public, and disturbing the serenity of the proceedings.

Conduct contrary to the abovementioned aspect of the general principle of the due administration of justice constitutes an abuse of procedure which may be taken into account in awarding costs.

Furthermore, the protection accorded to the parties to judicial proceedings by reason of the abovementioned aspect of the general principle of the due administration of justice must apply to a prospective intervener before the Court. That prospective intervener takes part in the judicial activities and, on that basis, he must be entitled to the same level of protection as the parties to the proceedings as regards the possibility of defending his interests free from all external influences and particularly from influences on the part of members of the public.

The publication of the application to intervene on an internet site, presenting the applicant for leave to intervene in a negative light and aimed at engendering in members of the public negative feelings towards that applicant, constitutes an abuse of procedure that may be taken into account when allocating costs pursuant to Article 135(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 49-53, 60, 61)
Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, concerning the rectification of clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies, is not applicable to the procedure before the General Court, which is solely governed by its own Rules of Procedure. An appellant cannot therefore remedy his failure to act under that article by requesting the General Court to correct or rectify alleged clerical mistakes or obvious inaccuracies in contested decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal.

It is not the role of the appeal court to supplement statements of reasons for decisions delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal. Furthermore, where the Tribunal has granted the appellant’s application and has annulled the decision at issue, a ground of appeal alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal did not consider the second argument raised before it, and that the judgment should be supplemented to take account of that argument, is not capable of having an influence on the operative part of the judgment concerned and of procuring an advantage for the appellant. In that regard, since an appeal under Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice may be brought only by a party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, the ground of appeal must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

(see para. 35)

Judgments of 19 October 1995 in Rendo and Others v Commission, C‑19/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1995:339, para. 13, and 13 July 2000 in Parliament v Richard, C‑174/99 P, ECR, EU:C:2000:412, para. 33
Order of the President of the of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 2017 — Vnesheconombank v Council

(Case T-737/14 R)

(Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Application for the suspension of operation of measures — No urgency)

1. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 18, 19)

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 happening of future and uncertain events—Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 22, 23)

3. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for—Lack of essential factual and legal elements in the order for reference—Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(5)) (see paras 25, 27)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Financial loss—Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence—Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market—Obligation to show obstacles of a legal or structural nature preventing that company from regaining a significant proportion of market share (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 26, 37, 38)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014, L 229, p. 13) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 83312014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 June 2016 —

Pshonka v Council (Case T‑380/14)

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Period starting to run as from the fourteenth day following that publication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 36, 40-54)

2. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Obligation to disclose incriminating evidence — Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014) (see paras 37-39, 62, 72)

3. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114) (see para. 81)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part

1. Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka.

2. The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.
26

First, as regards the represented undertakings enjoying a reduction notified by the Federal Republic of Germany to the Commission and for which the Commission has not yet adopted a decision as to its compatibility with the internal market before the date of first application of the contested guidelines, it is true that, as the applicants assert, in accordance with paragraphs 246 and 247 of the guidelines, the latter apply from 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2022 to all aid measures on which the Commission is called to rule, even those notified before the first of those dates. However, the Commission cannot apply the contested guidelines with regard to a reduction of that kind otherwise than by means of a decision under Article 4(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), that is to say a decision opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU or, finally, a decision to close that procedure under Article 7 of Regulation No 659/1999. It is those decisions, and not Annex 3, which could have a direct effect on the represented undertakings by finding that the reduction granted to them is not compatible with the internal market on the ground that the dairy sector is not listed in Annex 3. The represented undertakings could contest the legality of those decisions before the General Court and in particular claim that the dairy sector should have been listed in Annex 3.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 —

NK Rosneft and Others v Council

(Case T‑69/15)

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see para. 20)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. NK Rosneft OAO, RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO, RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO, RN-Exploration OOO and Tagulskoe OOO are ordered to bear their own costs.

Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 —

NK Rosneft and Others v Council

(Case T‑69/15)

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lis pendens — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 19)

2. Judicial proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see para. 20)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 58), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 20), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
When suspension of the operation of an EU measure is sought, the grant of the interim measure requested is justified only where the act at issue constitutes the decisive cause of the alleged serious and irreparable harm. The harm must result from effects produced by the disputed measure alone and not from a lack of diligence on the part of the party seeking the interim measure. If it has not demonstrated the full level of diligence that ought to be demonstrated by a prudent and well-informed undertaking, the party seeking interim measures must bear even harm which it claims is liable to jeopardise its existence or to alter irrevocably its position on the market.

In the case of an application for interim measures citing serious and irreparable harm, both financial and non-financial, and resting on the premiss that Regulation No 1174/2014, registering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications, prohibits the applicant from using a geographical designation, thereby placing it at a disadvantage in comparison with its competitors, an applicant must be regarded as not having demonstrated the reasonable diligence to be expected of a prudent and well-informed trader if it fails to avail itself of the opportunity, provided by Article 5(5) and (6) of Regulation No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, to obtain permission to continue to use the designation in question during a transitional period.

(see paras 29-32)
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 December 2015 —

E‑Control v ACER

(Case T‑671/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Opinion on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Infringement of procedural 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 6)

2. Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Insufficient explanation of the grounds constituting a prima facie case — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 156(4)) (see paras 7-10)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 13-14)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators No 09/2015 of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15), and the guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.