ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 September 2011 – Maftah v Commission

(Case T-101/09)

Action for annulment – Period allowed 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 Elmabruk Maftah 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 – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings – General reference to documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 12, 14-18)

2. 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. 104(2)) (see para. 13)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures to safeguard the applicant's physical safety, his fundamental rights and those of European citizens who might be affected.

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 11-14)

2. 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. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

3. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29-32)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 33)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures concerning call for tenders EuropeAid/127843/D/SER/KOS for the provision of support services to the customs and tax authorities in Kosovo.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. 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 – 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. 104(2)) (see paras 18-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of an opportunity to be awarded and to perform the contract in the tendering procedure – Damage capable of full remedy in the action in the main proceedings or in an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33, 36)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of an opportunity to be awarded and to perform the contract in the tendering procedure – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of decisions taken by the defendant, in a tendering procedure, to reject the applicant’s bid and to award the contract for supply of TF and PF conductors to another tenderer.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/420/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON89034xNK603 (MON-89Ø34‑3xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 15).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

15 July 2011

Case T-366/10 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Non-contractual liability – Reimbursement of recoverable expenses – Parallel proceedings exception – Procedural defects – Rights of the defence – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 22 June 2010, Case F-78/09 Marcuccio v Commission, and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Specific procedure excluding the use of a procedure for liability

(Art. 236 EC; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1); Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The specific procedure for seeking taxation of costs, provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings alleging non-contractual liability on the part of the European Union. The application of that principle in an action alleging non-contractual liability on the part of a Union institution in its capacity as an official’s employer does not constitute an infringement of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, since the relationship which exists between the parties under the Staff Regulations is independent of the fact that the legislature introduced, on the taxation of costs, a specific procedure laid down in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies without exception to actions in staff cases.

(see paras 27, 30, 31)

See: T-214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-143 and II-663, paras 37 and 38
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Whether directly concerned

–

Criteria

–

Regulation establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism

–

Regulation limited to establishing the conditions and procedure for granting financial assistance to a Member State

–

Wide discretion of the Council as to the conditions to be fulfilled by the Member State in order to receive assistance

–

Loss of value of the applicant’s pension rights depending on various other factors

–

Applicant not directly affected (Art. 263, para. 4, TFEU; Council Regulation No 407/2010) (see paras 20-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ 2010 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Thomas Ax is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The Republic of Latvia and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding no State aid in respect of a national measure without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action brought by the parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 30-34)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding a national measure not to constitute State aid – Action by a competitor challenging the decision – Market position of the undertaking not substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 35, 44, 46, 48)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 19-21)

2. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Commitments by the undertakings concerned to render the notified transaction compatible with the common market – Undertakings given in the context of the Commission’s initial investigation, but not referred to in the Commission’s final decision at the conclusion of the in-depth investigation – Obligation on the Commission to compel the undertakings concerned to comply with such undertakings – None (Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 6(2) and 8(2)) (see paras 23-25, 28)

3. European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation for various kinds of harm allegedly suffered by the Communauté de communes de Lacq by reason of unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour following the concentration operation involving the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp. situated in Pardies (France) by Celanese Corp.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as partially devoid of legal foundation and partially manifestly inadmissible.

2. The Communauté de communes de Lacq is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Request for access to environmental information — Regulation No 1367/2006 — Limitation of the right of access — Disclosure harming environmental protection — Further exception to the right of access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 6) (see paras 26‑28)

2. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Definition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see paras 33, 34, 45)
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 an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Capacity as beneficiary of the aid scheme — Absence — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2011/5) (see paras 26-27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GENERAL COURT

28 April 2010

Case T-103/10 P(R)-R

European Parliament

v

U

(Interim measures — Civil service — Officials — Decision to dismiss — Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — No need to adjudicate)

Application: to suspend the application of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-511 and II-A-1-2771.

Held: There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures made by the European Parliament. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2))
Order of the President of the General Court of 9 July 2010 – Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

(Case T-177/10 R)

Interim measures – State aid – Preferential electricity tariffs – Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – 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 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 17-18)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – 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 (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-50)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – 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 (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-55)

4. Application 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. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 57)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 58)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Decision on the recovery of State aid – Public interest defended by the Commission and the interest of the beneficiary of the aid – No exceptional circumstances – Primacy of the public interest (Art. 88(2) EC; Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 61-64)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission decision C(2009) 8112 final of 19 November 2009 on the State aid C 38/A/2004 (ex NN 58/2004) and C 36/B/2006 (ex NN 38/2006) implemented by the Italian Republic in favour of Alcoa Trasformazioni.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-479/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/420/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON89034xNK603 (MON-89Ø34‑3xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 15).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.