ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2009 – Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission

(Case T-396/09 R)

Interim measures – Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality – Exemption granted to a Member State – Commission’s refusal to review – Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension – Negative administrative decision – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position – Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 34-35)

2. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Link of the measure sought to the pleadings in the main action – Provisional character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-39)

3. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Measure incompatible with the distribution of powers between institutions – Application seeking to enjoin the Commission to apply a possible annulment judgment in the main action in a particular way – Inadmissibility (Arts 266 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for suspension of operation of Decision C(2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009 declaring inadmissible the applicants’ request for review by the Commission of its Decision C(2009) 2560 final of 7 April 2009 granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from its obligations in combating ambient air pollution; and (ii) for interim measures requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to comply with those obligations at the earliest opportunity.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 – Insula v Commission

(Case T-246/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Debit notes – Application for suspension of operation – Failure to comply with formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 5, 7)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44 and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 8-9, 12, 14)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of two debit notes requiring the repayment of sums of money paid to the applicant under subsidy contracts.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 November 2010 – Concord Power Nordal v Commission

(Case T-317/09)

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 43-52, 58)

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. 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.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2010 – Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission

(Case T-200/09)

Action for annulment – Concentrations – Decision to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Period within which proceedings must be brought – Starting point – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Measure not notified to the applicant (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 47, 63)

Re:

APPLICATION to annul the Commission’s decision of 13 August 2008 to close the procedure initiated under Article 21(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), in relation to a concentration transaction between the applicant and Autostrade SpA (Case COMP/M.4388 – Abertis/Autostrade).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 – Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case T-275/09)

Action for annulment – Medicinal products for human use – Active substance eszopiclone – Marketing authorisation – Refusal of recognition as a new active substance – Act not amenable to review – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter from the Commission setting out its position as to the action to be taken following the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency – Not included (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 726/2004, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 15, 17-18, 20, 23-24, 31-32, 35)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision in the letter of the Commission addressed to the applicant on 6 May 2009 in the context of the procedure for authorising the placing on the market of Lunivia, inasmuch as it concerns classification of the active substance eszopiclone.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
50

It should be observed, in this regard, that, except in the case of legal aid, which is not relevant in the present case, the costs of representation by a lawyer are incurred by anyone bringing an action before a court requiring such representation, in the same way as other costs relating to the enforcement of that person’s rights, such as the costs occasioned in obtaining certificates or experts’ reports intended to demonstrate that that person’s legal claims are well founded. 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 general rule as to the allocation of the costs incurred, in particular in Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 2 May 1991, according to which, in such cases, the costs could be shared. Similarly, the fact that certain costs incurred by a party may be held to be non-recoverable and thus remain to be borne by that party is inherent in Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the Court is to determine the costs to be recovered if there is a dispute between the parties. The application of those provisions cannot constitute a breach of the right of access to justice, including in a case where, as in the present case, 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. The question as to the amount of costs that remain to be borne by the applicant is different from and independent of the question as to the amount that the defendant institution is to be ordered to pay in the main action.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based

–

Pleas in law not set out in the application

–

Reference to the whole of the annexes

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 5-7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (Case R 1111/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign ID SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Strålfors AB is ordered to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration of failure to act on the part of the European Parliament and the European Commission in that those institutions unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s letter of 6 October 2009, an application for directions to be issued and a request for protective measures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez is ordered to pay the costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Mr Ignacio Ruipérez Aguirre and the ACT Petition Association.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him and the non‑material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of criminal proceedings instigated against him in Belgium.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it is directed against AT, AU, AV and AW.

2. Mr Mariyus Noko Ngele’s head of claim seeking from the Court a declaration that the Centre pour le développement des entreprises (CDE) never replaced the Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI) and that the CDE does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium is dismissed on the basis that it is made before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.

3. Mr Noko Ngele’s claim that the Court should order that the judgment to be delivered is enforceable is rejected as inadmissible.

4. The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

5. Mr Noko Ngele is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings and the interim proceedings.
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 – Weighing-up of the interests – 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 13-16)

2. Applications 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 – Application for interim measures brought several months after the main action – No new circumstances – No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 19, 21-31)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings – No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 32-33)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the following contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant:

– Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39);

– Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25);

– Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81);

– Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 January 2012 — Groupe Partouche v Commission

(Case T-315/10)

‛Action for annulment — Concentrations — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility’

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20, 27, 36-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring the concentration operation for the acquisition by La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière of joint control over the undertaking Newco (Case COMP/M.5786 — Française des Jeux/Groupe Lucien Barrière/JV) to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Groupe Partouche is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière.

Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 January 2012 — Groupe Partouche v Commission

(Case T-315/10)

‛Action for annulment — Concentrations — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility’

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to elements in an annex — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20, 27, 36-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring the concentration operation for the acquisition by La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière of joint control over the undertaking Newco (Case COMP/M.5786 — Française des Jeux/Groupe Lucien Barrière/JV) to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Not included – Inadmissibility (Arts 106(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 16-18, 25-26)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of the principle of consistency of EU policies – Infringement of the right to an effective remedy – None – Inadmissibility (Arts 7 TFEU and 106(3) TFEU) (see para. 19)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of Directive 2002/77 – None – Inadmissibility (Art. 106(3) TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 22-24)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 1 October 2010 informing the applicant of its refusal to examine the complaint lodged by the applicant on 2 March 2009 seeking the opening of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC in respect of infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21) and, consequently, of Article 86(1) EC, by granting a regulatory advantage to France Télécom.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene by the French Republic and France Télécom.

3. Vivendi is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

17 March 2011

Case T-44/10 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Obligation to state reasons — Act adversely affecting an official — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09 Marcuccio v Commission, seeking annulment of that order.

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

Summary

1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25)

2. Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Rejection of an application for 100% reimbursement of medical expenses following refusal to recognise the existence of a serious illness — Not included

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90)

1. The requirement to state reasons is intended, on the one hand, to provide the person concerned with details sufficient to allow him to ascertain whether the decision is well founded or whether it is vitiated by an error which will allow its legality to be contested and, on the other, to enable the Court to review the legality of the decision. The relevant statement of reasons for assessing the legality of the contested decision is also that given in the decision rejecting the complaint.

(see paras 32-33)

See: 26 November 1981, 195/80 Michel v Parliament, para. 22; 8 September 2009, T-404/06 P ETF v Landgren, para. 108; 9 December 2009, T-377/08 P Commission v Birkhoff, para. 64; 21 June 2010, T-284/09 P Meister v OHIM, para. 21

2. In the absence of new information, the rejection of an application for 100% reimbursement of medical expenses submitted by an official following the appointing authority’s refusal to recognise that he is suffering from a serious illness entitling him to such reimbursement under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations is not an act adversely affecting him in that it does not in any way alter his legal position.

(see para. 45)

See: 9 September 2008, T-143/08 Marcuccio v Commission, paras 39-41, and T-144/08 Marcuccio v Commission, paras 32-34, confirmed by judgments of 9 December 2009 in C-513/08 P Marcuccio v Commission, para. 53, and in C-528/08 P Marcuccio v Commission, para. 44
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2012 — Vesteda Groep v Commission

(Case T-206/10)

‛State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to social housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting the commitments made by the Member State — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Inadmissibility’

1. 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 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 32, 34-37)

2. State aid — Existing aid — Examination by the Commission of the compatibility of the aid within the common market — Undertakings given by the Member State dispensing the aid — Commission unable to open the formal investigation procedure — No obligation on the Commission to place the parties challenged in a position to submit their observations (Art. 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 19(1)) (see paras 43-48)

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

1. The action is dismissed.