ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Concept

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Preparatory measures

–

Letter sent by the Commission to a national regulatory authority in the context of the procedure under Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55

–

Not included (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/55, Art. 22(4)) (see paras 43-52, 58

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 12 June 2009 addressed to the Bundesnetzagentur (German Regulatory Authority) on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

Operative part

1. It is not necessary to rule on the requests for confidential treatment made by Concord Power Nordal GmbH.

2. The action is dismissed.

3. Concord Power Nordal is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. OPAL NEL Transport GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 73/2009‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>20

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. General Bearing Corp. is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

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)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision

–

Conditions

–

Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy

–

Action brought by the Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France

–

Not of individual concern

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 73/2009) (see paras 29-33, 36, 40-43, 45

)
In order for that to be the case, such involvement must be objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings. That may be the case, inter alia, where the expert evidence is crucial for the outcome of the case, such that its production by one party has spared the Court the need to commission an expert’s report in the context of its powers pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure.

In cases involving findings of an essentially economic nature, the involvement of economic advisers or experts in addition to the work of legal advisers may sometimes prove necessary and thus give rise to costs that are recoverable under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

The right of access to justice is not breached merely by the fact that the amount of costs remaining to be borne by the applicant exceeds the amount of compensation awarded to him by the Court in the same case, even if that may have the effect of depriving him of that compensation.

Except in the case of legal aid, the costs of representation by a lawyer are incurred by anyone bringing an action before a court requiring such representation. The fact that, in the event of merely partial success of the claim, a portion of those costs may remain to be borne by the applicant is inherent in the principle, contained in the provisions of the Rules of Procedure on costs, according to which, in such cases, the parties may be ordered to bear their own costs in whole or in part. The application of those provisions cannot constitute a breach of the right of access to justice, including in a case where, by reason of a significant disparity between the amount claimed by the applicant and that finally awarded by the Court, the amount of costs that remains to be borne by the applicant exceeds the amount awarded to him in the main proceedings by the Court. It is up to any applicant to measure, before bringing an action, the risks inherent therein, including the risk of having to bear all or part of his own costs in the event of a total or partial dismissal of the action.

(see paras 49, 50)
1.

The suspension of operation laid down in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the General Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T‑95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 30 November 2010, but shall not extend beyond the date of delivery of the decision in the main proceedings or beyond the date of the formal conclusion of the accelerated procedure, initiated with regard to napropamide, under Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that directive but have not been included in its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5).
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2009 – Sniace v Commission

(Case T-238/09 R)

Application for interim measures – State aid – Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Application for suspension of operation – Failure to have regard to formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 15)

2. Applications 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 16-17, 21)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage capable of arising at any moment – Meaning – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid – National implementing measures – National rights of action – Effect (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 30-31)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 1479 final of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2010 – RWE Transgas v Commission

(Case T-381/09)

Action for annulment – Internal market in natural gas – Article 22 of Directive 2003/55/EC – Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to amend its decision regarding the grant of an exemption – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Letter sent by the Commission to a national regulatory authority in the context of the procedure under Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55 – Not included (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/55, Art. 22(4)) (see paras 37-47, 52)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 12 June 2009 addressed to the Bundesnetzagentur (German Regulatory Authority) on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. RWE Transgas a.s. is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
APPLICATION that the Commission be required, first, to indicate to the applicant, by granting it access to the file of the procedure in Case COMP/39.406 (Marine hoses) and in particular by making available a copy of the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 imposing a fine, if the applicant is mentioned by name in that decision and, if so, to state the context in which its name is mentioned, second, to remove, in a manner to be specified after the granting of access to the file, the mention of its name in the Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 and, third, not to mention it by name and refrain from making any reference to its name in the non-confidential version of the decision of 28 January 2009.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Tecnoprocess v Commission

(Case T-367/09)

Action for failure to act – Request to act – Manifest inadmissibility – Action for damages – Causal link – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see para. 48)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Compulsory – Action brought before the expiry of the time-limit for the institution’s reply – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 52-53)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 74-75)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 76-78, 83)

Re:

ACTION, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the European Union delegation to Nigeria have failed to act and, secondly, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 September 2011 – CEVA v Commission

(Case T-224/09)

Action for annulment – Specific programme for research and technological development on energy, environment and sustainable development – Protop project – Subsidy contract – Demand for recovery of payments made on account pursuant to a contract for the financing of research – Sub-contracting – Enforcement order – Act not subject to review – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility –None (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 111 to 114) (see paras 29-31)

2. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice for the applicant not the EU judicature (see para. 33)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Enforcement order from the Commission seeking recovery of a debt – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 49-50, 55-60, 64)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the enforcement order decision adopted by the Commission on 6 April 2009 by which the Commission called upon the applicant to refund all the payments made on account within the framework of a subsidy contract relating to a research project falling within the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 – 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 9-11)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-26)

3. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

Essentially, application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 11 May 2010 confirming the findings of the audit concerning the breakdowns of costs submitted by the applicant, in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 as regards the Amida project and in respect of the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2007 as regards the Bacs and Dirac projects.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Production before the General Court of opinions of the legal services of the Community institutions – Conditions (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2)) (see paras 19-21)

2. 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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action – Brief examination of the main action by the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 37-41)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Application for annulment of a regulation on trade in seal products – Plea challenging the validity of its legal basis – Plea not prima facie lacking in foundation (Art. 278 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1007/2009) (see paras 74-95)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Financial loss capable of subsequent financial compensation – Lack of urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1007/2009) (see paras 105-107)

6. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Inuit people unable to carry on their economic activities by reason of the prohibition, by Regulation No 1007/2009, on trade in seal products (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 1007/2009) (see paras 108-115)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The opinion of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union of 18 February 2009 on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities (COM(2008) 469 final of 23 July 2008), set out in Annex A-4 to the application for interim measures, and the extract from that opinion contained in paragraph 16 of that application are removed from the file in Case T-18/10 R.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

3. The 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 – 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 12-14)

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 requiring immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Unilateral refusal of assistance on the part of the group – Effect (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37, 39-40, 49-50, 52-56)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 2 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 – Prestressing steel), as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 27-31)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 32-38)

3. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 41)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure – Action by one natural or legal person against other natural or legal persons or seeking to challenge decisions of national courts or the conduct of a Member State – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature (Arts 256 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51 and Annex I, Art. 1) (see paras 37-41)

2. Procedure – Action for a declaration of the position of the General Court – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 256 TFEU) (see paras 42-43)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 44-45)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Conduct of the applicant constituting the cause of the alleged damage – Conduct complained of not attributable to the defendant institution – No causal link – Action manifestly devoid of legal foundation (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 52-58, 65-66)

5. Procedure – Conditions for admissibility of actions – Pleas seeking declaration of enforceability of the judgment to be delivered by the General Court – Action devoid of purpose – Inadmissibility (Arts 280 TFEU and 299 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60) (see paras 75-76)
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – New application for suspension of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414 – Obligation to withdraw authorisations for products containing that substance already carried out by the Member States – Legal impossibility of extending the period of grace allowed for the disposal of those products – Financial loss below the seriousness threshold of 10% – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 20-28)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Restitutio in integrum

–

Conditions

–

Vigilance required by the circumstances

–

Exceptional, and thus unforeseeable, events

–

Human error by a qualified co-worker

–

Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 27, 29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2010 (Case R 1543/2009-1) concerning the applicant’s application for full re‑establishment of its rights.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking a legal basis.

2. ara AG is ordered to pay the costs.