ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. The Court must freely assess the details of the case, taking account of the subject-matter and the nature of the dispute, its importance from the point of view of EU law and the difficulties presented by the case, the amount of work generated by the contentious proceedings for the agents or counsel involved and the economic interests represented by the dispute for the parties. In fixing the recoverable costs, the Court takes account of all the circumstances of the case up to the making of the order on taxation of costs, including the expenses necessarily incurred in relation to the taxation of costs proceedings.

Where an institution uses its freedom under the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court, applicable before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute to have recourse to the assistance of a lawyer, the latter’s remuneration is covered by the concept of expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings, without the institution being required to show that such assistance is objectively warranted. There is no question of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment between applicants in the event that the defending institution decides to have recourse to the services of a lawyer in certain cases, whereas in others it is represented by its agents.

Any other assessment would constitute an indirect restriction on the freedom conferred by the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and entail for the EU judicature a duty to substitute its own assessment for that of the institutions and bodies responsible for the organisation of their departments. Such a task is compatible neither with the first paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, nor with the power to adopt rules for their own internal organisation enjoyed by the institutions and bodies of the European Union in relation to the management of their cases before the courts of the European Union.

(see paras 14, 15)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2007 – Portugal v Commission

(Case T-387/07 R)

Interim measures – Reduction of financial assistance – Application to suspend operation – Lack of urgency

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-26, 28-31, 38-39)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend operation, on the one hand, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ pursuant to Decision C (95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995 and, on the other, of the alleged payment order contained in a debit note of 17 September 2007.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Subject of the case

Operative part



Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Cementownia ‘Odra’ S.A. to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 5611 of 22 December 2004 concerning the grant of a financial contribution from the Cohesion Fund for the carrying out of a waste management project in Attica (Greece).
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 – EREF v Commission

(Case T-94/07)

Action for annulment – Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 14-22)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 relating to a syndicated credit facility, and a loan, granted in the context of the construction by Framatone ANP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 3 December 2008 – RSA Security Ireland v Commission

(Case T-210/07)

Action for annulment – Common Customs Tariff – Issue of binding tariff information – Power of the national customs authorities – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 12(1)) (see paras 48-56, 64)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of a decision allegedly taken by the Commission and communicated to the applicant by email of the Irish Revenue Commissioners of 30 March 2007 concerning the classification of goods under a certain heading of the Combined Nomenclature.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 – Cumulative nature (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see paras 25-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.

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

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

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 22-23)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-28)

4. Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 29)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31, 33-34)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 38)

8. Application 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 para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision, taken by EUPOL Afghanistan in the context of a call for tenders, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the contract for the provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan to another tenderer.

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

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23, 25-27)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 24)

3. European Communities – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions (Arts 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC; Council Regulation No 423/2007) (see para. 39)

4. Application 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 40-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Bank Melli Iran is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.

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 – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

3. Applications for interim measures – Conditions of 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 28-29,40-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision C(2008) 3435 final of the Commission of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC), to the extent that the applicant is affected.

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

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Conditions relating to a signatory (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third and fourth paras; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 22-34

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4323 final of 25 September 2007 concerning the measure C 45/2006 implemented by France in the context of the construction by Areva NP of a nuclear power plant for Teollisuuden Voima Oy.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission of the European Communities

3. It is not necessary to decide on the applications for leave to intervene brought by the French Republic, the Republic of Finland, Greenpeace France and Greenpeace Nordic.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2009 — LPN v Commission

(Case T-186/08)

‛Action for annulment and damages — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Manifest inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC, 228 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 49-51)

2. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings (see paras 58, 59)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 65, 66)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 February 2008, as referred to in the Commission’s letter of 3 April 2008, addressed to the applicant under reference ENV.A.2/MAS/mm/D (2008) 5542, by which the Commission declared its intention to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint regarding the alleged incompatibility of construction of a dam on the River Sabor (Portugal) with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) (complaint No 2003/4523 — ‘Baixa Sabor’ dam project) and (ii) an alleged implied decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents, and an application for compensation.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of an alleged implied decision refusing access to documents under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

2. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 18‑23, 25‑27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 29)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 66, 72-73)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 78-79)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 80)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of the Commission’s administrative order of 9 September 2008 amending specific contract 2007/146271, which had been concluded between the Commission and the framework contractor for the project ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’ carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by reducing the number of days’ work carried out by the applicant – under a contract between him and the framework contractor – for which the framework contractor could bill the Commission, and second, the award of damages.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Volker Mauerhofer is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2008 – Spain v Commission

(Case T-65/08 R)

Interim proceedings – Control of concentrations – Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 – Conditions imposed by the Spanish authorities on parties to a concentration declared incompatible with the common market – Application for stay of execution – Prima facie case – Lack of urgency – Balance of interests

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-20)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of a decision requiring a Member State to withdraw the conditions imposed on an undertaking – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 62)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 71-74, 80)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved (Art. 242 EC) (see paras 82-86)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2007) 5913 final of 5 December 2007 (Case No COMP/M.4685 – Enel/Acciona/Endesa) in relation to a procedure pursuant to Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
It is therefore for the General Court to determine the amounts recoverable following the proceedings before it in the case which gave rise to the judgment under appeal. The General Court therefore has jurisdiction to rule on the application for taxation of costs relating to the proceedings before it which culminated in the judgment under appeal.

Under Articles 137 and 184 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, a decision as to costs is to be given in the final judgment or in the order which closes the proceedings. Thus, where the Court of Justice dismisses the appeal and orders the applicant to pay the costs, that order for costs must be interpreted as covering only the costs relating to the appeal. Dismissal of the appeal implies that the General Court’s decision on costs has not been set aside by the Court of Justice.

It is apparent from Article 136(2) of the Rules of Procedure that the General Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the costs relating to the proceedings before the Cancellation Division of OHIM. An application for taxation of such costs must therefore be declared inadmissible.

As for costs incurred before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, where the latter dismisses the action of the applicant without ruling on the costs of the procedure before it, it is for the intervener to lodge an application at the registry of the Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 85(1) and (6) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, seeking determination of the amount of the costs to be reimbursed for the procedure before the Board of Appeal. The action before the General Court and the appeal before the Court of Justice have no bearing on that assessment, since neither the judgment of the General Court nor the order of the Court of Justice challenged the lawfulness of the Board of Appeal’s decision. Those judicial proceedings only delayed the date on which the Board of Appeal’s decision for which the application was made for the costs to be fixed became final.

Accordingly, by analogy with the situation in which, where the Board of Appeal makes an order for costs and its decision remains valid after the dismissal of the applicant’s action before the General Court, the Court does not rule on the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

(see paras 17, 20-22)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2008 – Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission

(Case T-45/08)

Action for annulment – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Starting point – Publication in the Official Journal – Alleged lack of locus standi at the date of publication – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication of the measure in question (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 102(1)) (see paras 29-30)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 30)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Locus standi – Assessment by the Community judicative alone (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 32)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings made by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders it not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA;