ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 21 May 2021 –

Inivos and Inivos v Commission

(Case T‑38/21 R)

(Application for interim relief – Public procurement – Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 16-19)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 22, 23)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 24, 25)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Assessment in public procurement litigation – Serious damage – Sufficient in the case of a particularly serious prima facie case constituted by an obvious and serious illegality – Condition – Application for interim measures brought in the standstill period before conclusion of the contract with the successful tenderer (Art. 278 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2018/1046, Art. 175) (see paras 29, 30, 32)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU to suspend the operation of ‘Framework contracts for disinfection robots for European hospitals (COVID-19)’ FW-00103506 and FW-00103507, concluded by the Commission on 19 November 2020 with two tenderers.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
1.

Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Email from the chair of the disciplinary board summoning the applicant to attend a hearing before that board – Email not containing the administration’s definitive position in respect of the applicant’s individual situation – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 32-36)
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 18 November 2021 –

RG v Council

(Case T‑157/21)

(Action for annulment – Area of freedom, security and justice – Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, on the other – Council decision on the signing and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement – Mechanism of surrender pursuant to an arrest warrant – Person arrested and detained in Ireland after the end of the transition period for the purpose of the execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the United Kingdom during the transition period – Act not of individual concern – Non-regulatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Admissibility criteria – Interest in bringing proceedings – Locus standi – Decision on the signing and on provisional application of an international agreement – Actual content of the international agreement to be taken into account (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions – Council decision on the signing and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Euratom, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom, on the other – Action brought by a requested person on the basis of a European arrest warrant issued before the transition period and covered by that agreement – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decision 2020/2252) (see paras 26, 27, 29-32)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Decision on the signing and on provisional application of an international agreement – Precluded (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decision 2020/2252) (see paras 35, 37-41)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Council Decision (EU) 2020/2252 of 29 December 2020 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and on provisional application of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part, and of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning security procedures for exchanging and protecting classified information (OJ 2020 L 444, p. 2).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Ireland and the European Commission.

3. RG is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 March 2022 –

the airscreen company v EUIPO – Moviescreens Rental (airscreen)

(Case T‑382/21) ( 1 )

(EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark airscreen – Earlier EU word mark AIRSCREEN – Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings – Period for giving notice of opposition – Submission of earlier rights or grounds for opposition after the time limit – Precluded

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 8(2)(a) and 41(1) and (3))

(see para. 29)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 February 2022 –

TO v AEE

(Case T‑434/21)

(Civil service – Compliance with a judgment of the General Court – Decision which was not contested in time – Res judicata – Conditional undertaking given by the AECC in the context of an out-of-court settlement – Settlement offer not accepted by the applicant – No act adversely affecting the applicant – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement – Administration’s failure to act – Possibility for the person concerned to lodge a prior administrative complaint (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see para. 21)

2. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Administration’s out-of-court settlement offer subject to conditions and rejected by the addressee – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 27-34, 36-38)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 30 July 2021 –

Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑272/21 R)

(Interim relief – Institutional law – Member of Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Admissibility criteria – Prima facie admissibility of the main action (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(1) and (2)) (see para. 31)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 33-36)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 39, 40)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(2)) (see para. 42)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of decisions P9_TA(2021)0059, P9_TA(2021)0060 and P9_TA(2021)0061 of the Parliament of 9 March 2021 on the request for waiver of the applicants’ immunity.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 2 June 2021, Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament (T‑272/21 R) is set aside.

3. The costs of the main parties are reserved.
2.

EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Similarity between the goods or services in question – Criteria for assessment – Complementary nature of the goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paragraphs 31-34, 40, 46, 48)
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 February 2010 – Portugal v Transnáutica and Commission

(Case T-385/05 TO R)

Application for interim measures – Customs Union – Third-party proceedings – Judgment of the General Court – Application for suspension of operation – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 11, 13)

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 paras 11-15, 17-21)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension in third-party proceedings challenging the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/28

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited against the Commission of the European communities

(Case T-402/04)

(2005/C 19/60)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Rhodia Consumer Specialties Limited,Watford, United Kingdom, represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

— Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

— Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/38

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-24/05)

(2005/C 82/69)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA), Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA) and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation established in Vaduz (Liechtenstein), represented by M. Odriozola, M.Marañón and A. Emch, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81(1) EC by concluding agreements and/or concerted practices, during the period 1996-2001, designed to fix each year the (maximum) average delivery price of each variety of raw tobacco (all qualities) and to share out the quantities of each variety of raw tobacco to be bought. The Commission further found that for the last three years (1999 - 2001) they had also agreed among themselves price brackets per quality grade of each variety of raw tobacco and additional conditions.

In support of their application the applicants claim first of all that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article 23 (2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in holding the applicants liable for the infringement committed by their subsidiary. According to the applicants the Commission proved neither that the applicants were in a position to exercise decisive influence over their subsidiary during the whole duration of the infringement nor that they actually exercised any influence over the subsidiary's policy. In the alternative, the applicants also claim that the Commission stated insufficient reasons for holding them liable for their subsidiary's infringement.

Further, the applicants claim that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by failing to apply to the applicants the criteria it had applied in excluding liability of other parent companies for subsidiaries participating in the infringement in question. This includes failing to take into account that one of the applicants' interest in its subsidiary was of purely financial nature even though the Commission had excluded liability of another parent undertaking on exactly these grounds.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4/1/2003 p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/44

Action brought on 19 July 2006 — Edison v Commission

(Case T-196/06)

(2006/C 212/75)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Edison S.p.A. (represented by: Mario Siragusa, Roberto Casati, Matteo Beretta, Pietro Merlino and Eugenio Bruti Liberati, lawyers,)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate in so far as it affects the applicant.

— In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Edison by the contested decision.

— The Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in this case is the same as in Case T-185/06 L'air Liquide v Commission. That decision held the applicant jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by Ausimont for the whole duration of its participation in the cartel, and fined it EUR 58 125 000 for that infringement, EUR 25 619 000 of which jointly and severally with Solvay Solexis S.p.A.. That latter company is currently controlled by Solvay SA/NV, but, at the time of the infringement, under the name of Ausimont S.p.A., it was indirectly controlled by Montedison (now Edison).

In support of its arguments, the applicant argues:

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements, especially of the principle that both sides should be heard and of the rights of the defence; infringement of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004, for using for the first time in the decision, in support of its accusations, the fact that, for a large part of the infringement period, the managing director of Ausimont was also a board member of Montecatini, i.e. the intermediate company entirely controlled by Montedison (now Edison), which held the entire company capital of Ausimont.

— Infringement of Article 81 of the EC Treaty by wrongly imputing to the applicant the infringement of the competition rules committed by Ausimont. First, the Commission erred in concluding that entire ownership of the capital of an undertaking is sufficient to give rise to the presumption that the controlling company exercises a determining influence on the controlled company, so that the former may be regarded as jointly and severally liable for the infringement committed by the latter. Secondly, the applicant argues that the contested decision is self-contradictory and insufficient in its reasoning, and that Article 81 of the EC Treaty has been infringed in relation to the conclusion that, in this case, there were ‘other elements’ present which indicated that Ausimont was not an autonomous entity capable of deciding its own commercial strategy.

The applicant also claims that there has been infringement of the duty to state reasons, in that the Commission failed to consider all the documentary proofs and factual circumstances adduced by Edison in support of the contention that Ausimont was independent in determining its own commercial policies.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/20

Action brought on 22 February 2006 — RKW v Commission

(Case T-55/06)

(2006/C 96/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: RKW AG Rheinische Kunststoffwerke (Worms, Germany) (represented by: H.-J. Hellmann, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case C(2005) 4635 final, COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), served on the applicant on 14 December 2005, in so far as it concerns the latter; in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags. In the contested decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for infringement of Article 81 EC since, according to the Commission, it participated in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the industrial bags sector in Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

In support of its action the applicant submits that the contested decision infringes the duty of administrative authorities to comply strictly with the law. The defendant's method of levying fines does not fall within the scope of the enabling provision, namely Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (1), or Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 (2). In that regard, the applicant also claims that the principles of equal treatment and proportionality have been infringed.

In addition, the applicant complains that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and the guidelines on fixing fines have been misapplied. In particular, the submission and evaluation of the evidence in relation to the applicant was irregular. Furthermore, in view of previous administrative practice the applicant was disproportionately fined. As regards the amount of the initial sum for the gravity of the infringement, the applicant alleges that it was treated unequally, in several respects, in relation to the other parties to which the contested decision was also addressed. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law with regard to the assessment of the duration of the infringement and did not take mitigating circumstances into account. Finally, the applicant submits that Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 has also been infringed as the fine was wrongly fixed in the light of the application of the Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines.

(1) Council Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/21

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Dura Vermeer Infra v Commission

(Case T-352/06)

(2007/C 20/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Dura Vermeer Infra BV (represented by: M.M. Slotboom, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Articles 1(d) and 2(d) of the decision in so far as the liability of Dura Vermeer Infra is concerned; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its application, the claimant invokes the same pleas in law and arguments as does the claimant in Case T-351/06 Dura Vermeer Groep NV v Commission.