ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2009 – UCAPT v Council

(Case T-96/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Failure to comply with formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3) (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 (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-15)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The 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 terminating an aid proceeding — Competitor of the undertaking receiving the aid — Right to bring an action — Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 22-27, 35)

2. Procedure — Time-limit for producing evidence — Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(1) and 66(2)) (see para. 32)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/157/EC of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP Group (C 51/05 (ex NN 84/05)) (OJ 2009 L 53, p. 13).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. UOP Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and IFP.
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 February 2010 – Bakonyi v Hungary

(Case T-456/09 R)

Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate

Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Main action previously dismissed – Application which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in the context of an action against the Republic of Hungary.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 – Z v Commission

(Case T-173/09 R)

Interim measures – Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published – Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – 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 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17-18, 24)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Main head of damage not materialising (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

Re:

APPLICATION for access to the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/G/39.406 – Marine hoses) and deletion of the applicant’s name from the text of that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose.

2. This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 5 October 2010 – Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe v Commission

(Case T-69/09)

Annulment action – ERDF – Decision reducing financial assistance and ordering partial repayment of sums paid – Regional body – No direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Decision of the Commission, addressed to a Member State, reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and requiring partial reimbursement of sums paid – Action brought by regional bodies designated as beneficiaries of the assistance – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34, 37-39, 41-42, 45, 53-54)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region (Netherlands) coming under objective 2 – No 97.07.13.003 – granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Tecnoprocess v Commission and EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco

(Case T-264/09)

Action for failure to act – Invitation to act – Inadmissibility – Action for damages – Causal link – Loss – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Actions for failure to act – Community institution – Commission delegation – Not included – Action against the delegation for failure to act – Inadmissibility (Art. 20 EU) (see paras 70-71)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 84-85)

3. Actions for failure to act – Time-limits – Mandatory – Action brought late – Claim barred by lapse of time (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 92-94)

4. Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Limits – Jurisdiction to rule on rights under contracts with a view to securing their performance – Not included (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para, EC) (see para. 116)

5. 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 117-118)

6. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 120-122)

Re:

ACTION firstly, for a declaration that the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco have failed to act and secondly, for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of, inter alia, that failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law.
APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to take measures preventing the Turkish authorities from infringing the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey when determining the origin of colour televisions imported into the Community from Turkey.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2012 – Mojo Concerts and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie v Commission

(Case T-90/09)

State aid – Action for annulment – Investment of the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex – Decision finding that there was no State aid – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision closing an aid proceeding – Competitor of the aid recipient – Right to bring an action – Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6018 final of 21 October 2008 on the investment made by the Gemeente Rotterdam in the Ahoy’ complex (State aid C 4/2008 (ex N 97/2007, ex CP 91/2007)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome Exploitatie BV are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, the Gemeente Rotterdam and Ahoy’ Rotterdam NV.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Conditions for admissibility

–

Connection of the measure sought with the pleas in the main proceedings

–

Provisional character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 8-10

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, in essence, a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) are unlawful, in so far as it appears therein that the Commission decided to grant legal assistance to one of its former members and to a number of its agents.

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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-24)

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 47-48, 66-67)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern stated to have been adopted by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on 7 December 2009 pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 10)

2. Applications 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 para. 14)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of various decisions of the European Parliament ordering the recovery of parliamentary allowances allegedly unduly paid.

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 – 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 7-8)

2. Application for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas 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(3)) (see paras 9-16)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 12 March 2010 confirming the findings of the audit of financial statements submitted by the applicant for the period from 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 in respect of the eMapps.com, CEEC IST NET and Transfer-East 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

Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time-limits – Inadmissibility – Meaning of confirmatory decision – Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25, 27, 29-30, 33-34, 38, 41)

2. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Action inadmissible – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – No impact on assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 46-48)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/45/EU of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322) to the extent that it lists the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (under reference ES6120032) as a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

3. There is no need to rule on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.
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 2010/429/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88Ø17-3 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 46).

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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying borates as substances of very high concern

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 7(2) and (3), 31(9)(a), 33, 34(a), 59 and Annex XIV)

Summary

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition for the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a decision that is not addressed to him, requires that the measure complained of directly affect the legal situation of the individual, and that it leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from European Union rules without the application of other intermediate rules.

In that regard, it must be concluded that the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying borates as substances of very high concern for eventual inclusion in the list in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency, as amended, does not directly affect the legal situation of an applicant who is an importer of borates in the light of the obligations laid down by that regulation, in so far as it is established, first, that the identification of borates as substances of very high concern as a result of the procedure referred to in Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not amount to new information capable of affecting the risk management measures, or new information on hazards within the meaning of Article 31(9)(a) of Regulation No 1907/2006, and therefore the applicant is not obliged to update the safety data sheet; and, secondly, that the information obligations under Article 7(2) and Articles 33 and 34(a) of that regulation are not of concern to the applicant.

Moreover, the mere fact that a measure may exercise an influence on an applicant’s material situation cannot suffice to allow him to be regarded as directly concerned. Only the existence of specific circumstances may enable a person subject to European Union law and claiming that the measure affects his position on the market to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. An applicant who has merely claimed that his customers will be reluctant to continue to buy products which are on the candidate list has failed to prove the existence of those specific circumstances.

(see paras 22, 24, 37, 39-41)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

21 June 2011

Case T-12/10 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reimbursement of expenses — Note from the Commission informing the applicant of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension — Lack of any measure adversely affecting the appellant — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 October 2009 in Case F-94/08 Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-421 and II-A-1-2281, seeking the annulment of that order.

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

Summary

Officials — Actions — Act adversely affecting an official — Concept — Note from the administration informing the official concerned of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

A note from the administration informing an official of its intention to make a deduction from his invalidity pension, if he does not apply to the Community Courts for taxation of costs which he was ordered to pay in an earlier case, does not constitute the adoption of a definitive position by the administration and may not be regarded as having directly and immediately affected his interests by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

(see paras 21- 22)
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 declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market – Access to the aid scheme opened on the basis of objective criteria and without limitation as to the number of potential beneficiaries – Action of a company eligible for that scheme – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 25-26, 28-30, 34-35, 42)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by a potential beneficiary company of duly notified State aid brought against the Commission decision declaring it incompatible with the internal market under certain restrictive conditions – Beneficiaries of new aid not able to invoke unfavourable legal effects in relation to a previous situation – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 55, 58)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) – Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV and the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed.

3. Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. Vesteda Groep and the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, applicants for leave to intervene, are ordered to bear their own costs.