ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation establishing criteria for calculating aid for olive oil producers – Action brought by olive oil producers and producer associations – Measure of general application – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissible

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Whether admissible – Conditions

(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)

Summary

1. An action for annulment brought by olive oil producers and producer associations in respect of point (7) of Article 1 of Regulation No 864/2004 amending Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers is inadmissible.

That provision constitutes a measure of a legislative nature and cannot therefore be classed as a bundle of individual decisions in so far as it lays down the criteria for calculating aid in the olive oil sector in general and abstract terms, without any account whatsoever being taken of the specific circumstances of each olive oil producer.

Furthermore, the applicants are affected by the contested provision by reason specifically of an objective factual situation, namely that they produced olive oil during the reference period and received aid under one of the aid schemes established by the earlier legislation. That situation is defined in terms of the very purpose of the regulation containing the contested provision: the introduction of a new aid scheme in the olive oil sector. In that regard, even if the contested provision may produce effects which vary from one olive oil producer to another, that is not sufficient to show that the applicants have attributes which are peculiar to them or are in a factual situation which differentiates them from other producers. Even supposing that, pursuant to the contested provision, certain producers were no longer eligible for the aid in question in the olive oil sector, they still could not be individually concerned by that provision. The fact that certain traders may be more affected economically by a measure than the other traders in the same sector is not sufficient for them to be regarded as individually concerned by that measure.

(see paras 33-34, 36, 39, 60-61)

2. A professional association set up to protect and represent the interests of its members may bring an action for annulment in three types of situation: first, where a legal provision expressly confers upon it a number of powers of a procedural nature; secondly, where the association is differentiated by reason of the impact on its own interests as an association, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which the annulment is sought; and, thirdly, where the association represents the interests of undertakings which themselves have locus standi.

(see para. 50)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 32, 34-35)

2. Procedure – More than one defendant (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION made by the Commission for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect of two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community programme ‘Telematics applications of common interest’

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Tillis relating to his plea of inadmissibility.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (see paras 20, 26-29

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION based on an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicants the total sum of EUR 394 066.76 on account of its alleged failure to fulfil contractual obligations arising under the agreement on the creation of an Info Point Europe in Avignon.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 16 February 2006 − Centro Europa 7 v Commission

(Case T-338/04)

Article 86(3) EC – Rejection of complaint – Action for annulment – Plea of inadmissibility

Applications for interim measures – Actionable measures (Art. 86(1) and (3) EC) (see paras 36-38)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 4 June 2004 [D (2004) 471] in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint that the Italian Republic had infringed the combined provisions of Articles 86 EC and 82 EC

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 18 April 2008 – Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-302/04)

Arbitration clause – Creation of an Info Point Europe – Agreement concluded between the Commission and the applicant – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Action manifestly unfounded

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (see paras 20, 26-29)

Re:

ACTION based on an arbitration clause seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicants the total sum of EUR 394 066.76 on account of its alleged failure to fulfil contractual obligations arising under the agreement on the creation of an Info Point Europe in Avignon.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

14 May 2007

Case T-164/04

Patricia Wauthier and Viviane Deveen

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal in relation to the applicants and, alternatively, the applicants’ career development reports for that period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – 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 39-40)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-52, 54)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 67-68)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative requirements – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 243 EC) (see paras 32-33)

3. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 243 EC) (see paras 37-40)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 76a) (see paras 41, 43-44, 47-50)

5. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 243 EC; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 52-57)

6. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 243 EC) (see paras 59-60)

7. Applications for interim measures – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 243 EC) (see paras 61-66)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for an order, first, for suspension of the operation of the Commission’s letter of 15 November 2005 declaring that a concentration between Gas Natural SDG, SA, and Endesa, SA, does not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim measures

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 62-64)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 66-69)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-71)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of Article 2(1) in combination with Article 1(2) to (4) of the Commission’s decision concerning State aid (C 11/2004 (ex NN 4/2003) – Olympic Airways – Restructuring and privatisation) of 14 September 2005.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decisions 2004/798 and 2004/813) (see paras 41-49, 67-73)

2. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 52)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/798/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 382, p. 1), and Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Damage – Damage for which compensation due (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 15-16)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Actual and certain damage – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 20, 27, 33, 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission of 12 February 2004 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against Eurocontrol in respect of alleged infringements of the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law;

2. Orders SELEX Sistemi Integrati Spa to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2006 – Olympiakes Aerogrammes v Commission

(Case T-416/05 R)

Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – State aid – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-49)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-52)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of Article 2, combined with Article 1(1), of Commission Decision C 11/2004 on State aid (ex NN 4/2003) – Olympiaki Aeroporia – Restructuring and privatisation, of 14 September 2005.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2006 – Componenta v Commission

Interim measures – Application for suspension of operation – State aid – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative requirements – Provisional nature of the measure – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-19)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 on State aid C 37/2004 (ex NN 51/2004) granted by the Republic of Finland to Componenta Ojy.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 19 September 2006 – CFE v Commission

(Case T-100/05)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2004/813/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region – Person directly affected – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2004/813) (see paras 33-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 27 August 2008 – Adomex v Commission

(Case T-315/05)

Action for annulment – Aid granted by the Netherlands authorities in the floriculture sector – Decision not to raise objections – Not individually concerned – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding State aid incompatible with the common market without opening the formal investigation procedure (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27-31, 33-36)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 592 final of 16 March 2005 not to raise objections with regard to aid N 372/2003 concerning the floriculture sector, notified by the Netherlands authorities.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 – V v Parliament

(Case T‑345/05 R)

Applications for interim measures – Waiver of immunity of a Member of the European Parliament – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Application for interim measures – Admissibility – Urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of the interests (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 42-52)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 55-60)

4. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(d)) and 104(3)) (see para. 63)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 81-83, 90, 92)

Re:

APPLICATION, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Resolution of the European Parliament [confidential] to waive the applicant’s immunity from suit, secondly, for interim measures to prevent criminal proceedings being resumed pending final judgment of the Court of First Instance in the main action, thirdly, for an order that the applicant’s anonymity be protected and that there be no publicity in respect of the present application pending the ruling of the Court of First Instance on the main application and the conclusion of any trial before the national court, fourthly, for a direction that the applicant be granted permission to disclose the parties’ written pleadings in the interlocutory proceedings and in the main action to the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom and to the national court hearing the domestic case and, fifthly, for an order that the hearing of the main application be expedited so as to take place as soon as possible.

Operative part

The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Order provisionally suspending operation of a European Parliament decision until delivery of the order concluding the interim proceedings

–

Indication by the Parliament of its intention not to implement that decision further

–

No need to adjudicate (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 105(2)) (see paras 9-12

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation

–

Conditions of grant

–

Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 30

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the European Parliament’s Decision of 13 December 2005 not to defend the immunity and privileges of Mr Gollnisch.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim relief;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Appeals before the Community judicature

–

Persons entitled to appeal and to be parties to the proceedings (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(4)) (see paras 22-24

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 December 2005 (Case R 1116/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bankinter SA and the Confederación Española de Cajas de Ahorros.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Francisco Javier González Sánchez is ordered to pay all of the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Absolute grounds for refusal

–

Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 42-43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2005 (Case R 855/2004-2) concerning an application for the registration of the word sign THE COFFEE STORE as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

>lt>7

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders The Coffee Store GmbH to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Arts 7(2) to (5), 8(3)(d) and 16(4)) (see paras 56, 62-63, 66-69)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Art. 230 EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Art. 7(3) and (4) (see paras 75‑78)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Directive of the European Parliament and Council 2002/21, Art. 7(3) and (5)) (see paras 119-121)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 4 August 2006, addressed to the Institut belge des services postaux et des telecommunications (Belgian Institute of Post and Telecommunications Services) containing comments, pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), concerning a draft decision notified by that institute (Case BE/2006/0433).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Base NV to pay its own costs and the costs of the Commission;

3. Orders Mobistar SA and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay their own costs.