ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the parties having been given an opportunity to submit their written observations pursuant to Article 164(3) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, a clerical mistake found in paragraph 173 of that judgment.
Action for annulment — Acts open to challenge — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Possibility of disregarding that condition by invoking the right to effective judicial protection — None

(Arts 263(4) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47 and 52(7))

(see para. 54)
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 September 2019 –

Intering and Others v Commission

(Case T‑525/19 R)

(Interim measures — Procedure for the award of a contract — Application for suspension of operation — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim relief — 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 court hearing the application for interim relief — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 15-20)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 21-25)

3. Application for interim relief — 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 (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 26-30)

4. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Assessment in public procurement litigation — Serious damage — Sufficient in the case of a particularly serious prima facie case constituted by an obvious and serious illegality — Condition — Application for interim measures brought in the standstill period before conclusion of the contract with the successful tenderer (Art. 278 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Art. 175) (see paras 31-34)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the European Commission, communicated by letter of 30 July 2019 (AresD[2019] Na/vk), not to allow the applicants to submit a detailed offer in the procedure for the award of the contract EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK and the temporary suspension of the procedure for the award of the contract.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T‑56/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para., and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2020 –

Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case T‑885/19 R)

(Application for interim relief — Energy — Trans-European energy infrastructure — Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 — Commission Delegated Regulation amending Regulation No 347/2013 — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

1. Application for interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Application for interim relief — 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 liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 18-22, 38, 39)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the Commission Delegated Regulation of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the list of projects of common interest of the Union.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see para. 15)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 March 2020 –

AP v EIF

(Case T‑155/19)

(Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — EIF Staff — Tendering by the member of staff of her resignation for personal reasons — Leave due to serious illness starting before the end date of the employment contract chosen by the member of staff — Application for withdrawal of the resignation after the end date of the employment contract chosen by the member of staff — EIF’s refusal to accept the retroactive withdrawal of the resignation — End date of the contract delayed on account of sick leave — Whether Article 33 of the EIF Staff Regulations is applicable — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Possibility to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling beforehand on the objections of inadmissibility raised by the defendant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 126 and 130) (see paras 21-23)

2. Officials — Staff of the European Investment Fund — Resignation — Applicable rules — Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of the Fund — Scope — Obligation to suspend the period of notice of resignation in the event of illness — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 34; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Fund, Arts 17, 18 and 33) (see paras 30, 35, 36, 40, 41)

3. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Fund — Subject matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 45)

4. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 49, 50)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the EIF’s letters of 30 August and 3 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request of 20 June 2018, secondly, that the EIF be ordered to pay the applicant the benefits under Article 33 of the EIF Staff Regulations and, thirdly, compensation for the non-material harm that the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 July 2020 –

Klein v Commission

(Case T‑562/19)

(Action for failure to act – Medical devices – Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 93/42/EEC – Safeguard clause procedure – Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device – Absence of a decision by the Commission – Out of time – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Notification by a Member State of a decision prohibiting the placing on the market of a medical device – Failure by the Commission to adopt an act under Directive 93/42 – Applicant not being directly concerned by such an act – Inadmissibility (Arts 263 and 265 TFEU; Council Directive 93/42, Art. 8(1) and (2)) (see paras 42-47)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request – No precise formal rules – Letter allowing the institution concerned to make a concrete examination of the content of the requested decision (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 61, 62)

3. Actions for failure to act – Time limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Possibility to rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – Condition (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 71)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in the safeguard clause procedure initiated by the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 January 1998 and adopt a decision in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) in respect of the device Inhaler Broncho Air®.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 –

GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T‑881/19)

(Arbitration clause – Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) – ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Grant agreements – Set-off of claims – Identification of the defendant – Failure to comply with procedural requirements – Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – Capacity to be a defendant – Grant agreements concluded under the Sixth and Seventh Framework Programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006 and 2007-2013) and under the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Agreements concluded with the Research Executive Agency (REA) – Action directed against the Commission – Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 58/2003; Commission Decision 2013/778) (see paras 27-31)

2. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Art. 272 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 35-39, 47-50)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the Commission reimburse the eligible costs incurred by the applicant, first, between August 2015 and April 2016 and, secondly, during the period of the preliminary insolvency proceedings, namely EUR 1680 681.82, plus interest of EUR 76 552.60, in respect of the grant agreements awarded under the sixth and seventh framework programmes for research, technological development and demonstration activities and the ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 2020 –

Golden Omega v Commission

(Case T‑846/19)

(Action for annulment – Customs union – Common Customs Tariff – Tariff nomenclature – Classification in the Combined Nomenclature – Regulatory act entailing implementing measures – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Tariff classification rules – Whether applicant individually affected – Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU Commission Regulation 2019/1661, Art. 1) (see paras 29-31, 48-51, 53)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures – Concept – Tariff classification rules – Included – Court remedies available against such measures – Existence of internal remedies against the implementation measures (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU Commission Regulation 2019/1661) (see paras 33-39, 43)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1661 of 24 September 2019 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2019 L 251, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 11-14)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 22 July 2020 –

KN v EESC

(Case T‑377/20 R)

(Application for interim relief – Civil service – Member of the EESC – Harassment – OLAF investigation – EESC Bureau decision – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 14-17)

2. Application for interim relief – 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 (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 20-23)

3. Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Damage to the applicant’s reputation – Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings – None (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 38-40)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of enforcement of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 by which the applicant was discharged from all supervisory and personnel management activities and, second, provisional suspension of the delivery of that decision to the institutions of the European Union and certain bodies of the Member States.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed;
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3))

(see paras 8-11)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2020 – Comune di Stintino v Commission

(Case T‑174/20)

(Action for annulment – Grant agreement in the framework of the funding instrument for the environment (LIFE+) – Debit Note – Act which is part of a purely contractual framework and from which it is inseparable – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Annulment of a letter and a debit note issued by the Commission – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 263, 272, 274, 288 and 299 TFEU) (see paras 23-30, 41-43)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Debit note of an institution noting an existing debt and without executory force – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 38)

3. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Brief statement of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (e)) (see paras 44-46)

Re:

Application brought under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the alleged decision set out in the letter Ares(2020) 734033 of the Commission, of 5 February 2020, on the reduction of the grant awarded to the applicant under the LIFE10 NAT/IT/244 project and on the repayment of the excess sum already paid; of Debit Note No 3242002652 of the Commission, of 24 February 2020, requesting that the applicant pay it EUR 447 078.63; of the alleged decision set out in the letter Ares(2019) 6551262 of the Commission, of 23 October 2019, relating to the proportion of the ineligible costs; and of all preliminary, consequential or connected acts or measures.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 5 May 2021 –

Ovsyannikov v Council

(Case T‑714/20 R)

(Application for interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine – Freezing of funds – Application for the suspension of operation of measures – No urgency)

Interim relief – 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 – No disclosure regarding the applicant’s financial situation – No urgency

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 23, 30-32, 36, 37)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of operation of Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16), of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2163 of 20 November 2017 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2017 L 304, p. 51), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2153 of 20 November 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (OJ 2017 L 304, p. 3), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/399 of 13 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2020 L 78, p. 44), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/398 of 13 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (OJ 2020 L 78, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1269 of 10 September 2020 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2020 L 298, p. 23), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1267 of 10 September 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (OJ 2020 L 298, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1368 of 1 October 2020 amending Decision 2014/145 (OJ 2020 L 318, p. 5), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1367 of 1 October 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (OJ 2020 L 318, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.