ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 14 December 2011 – Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-552/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Financial assistance – Debit note seeking recovery of financial assistance – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 8, 10-11, 19)

2. 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 – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 9)

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 – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13-14)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full reparation in the context of the action in the main proceedings or an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 18)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the debit note of 9 September 2011 issued by the Commission seeking recovery of the sum of EUR 83 001.09 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2011 – Glaxo Group v OHIM – Farmodiética (ADVANCE)

(Case T-243/11)

Community trade mark – Applicant represented by a lawyer who is a not a third party – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Third party capacity in relation to the parties – Application signed by an internal lawyer of a group company – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 13, 15, 18-19)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2011 (Case R 665/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Farmodiética – Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, L da and Glaxo Group Ltd.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission

(Case T-261/11)

Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Commission decision finding, at the conclusion of the formal investigation procedure, that aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by the main shareholder of the beneficiary undertaking — Mere shareholding in an undertaking and involvement in the aid investigation procedure not in itself sufficient to give rise to a right to bring proceedings — No present or future threat to solvency — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 16-17, 21, 24, 26-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos SA (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Goldfields Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-442/11)

Action for annulment — Act not subject to review — Act which is confirmatory, in part, and informative, in part — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Failure to identify the alleged conduct or to define the alleged damage — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — No proof of damage — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 60-64)

2. Actions for annulment — Action brought against a decision confirming a decision which was not contested within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors — Not included — Complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman — No new and substantial facts or re-examination of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 66-68, 85, 87, 89, 90)

3. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 79)

4. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 92, 96, 99-101)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof — Claim for compensation without explanation as to the damage alleged and the link between that damage and the conduct of the Community institution — Conditions not fulfilled (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 102-104, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123, 125)

6. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 146)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of a letter of the Commission of 27 May 2011, second, for an order for the Commission to pay damages and, third, for an order for the Commission to publish a communiqué.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2013 — Post Invest Europe v Commission

(Case T-413/12)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Belgian authorities to De Post-La Poste (now bpost) — Compensation for public service costs — Decision declaring the aid in part incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Offers of further evidence’

1. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for producing evidence — Article 48(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Scope — Fresh offers of evidence at the stage of observations on the plea of inadmissibility — Admissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1), and 48(1)) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by the main shareholder of the beneficiary undertaking — Mere holding in the capital of an undertaking insufficient in itself to confer an interest in bringing proceedings — No present or future threat to solvency — Uncertain future legal position — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-24, 28-30)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Articles 2 and 5 to 7 of Commission Decision 2012/321/EU of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C 20/09) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost) (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Belgium.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 October 2012 — EDF v Commission

(Case T-389/12 R)

Application for interim measures — Competition — Concentrations — Electricity market — Decision authorising a concentration operation subject to compliance with certain commitments — Refusal to grant the postponement of the deadline set for fulfilling those commitments — Application for interim measures — Lack of urgency

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 — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the judge dealing with 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 9-11)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation capable of jeopardising the applicant company’s existence or irrevocably changing its market position — Burden of proof — Need to provide a faithful overall image of the financial situation of the undertaking (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-18, 22, 23)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in relation to Commission Decision C(2012) 4617 final of 28 June 2012 refusing to grant the applicant the postponement of the deadline fixed for fulfilling some of its commitments set out in Decision C(2009) 9059 of 12 November 2009, which authorises the concentration operation whereby Électricité de France was to acquire exclusive control of the assets of Segebel (Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/Segebel).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Lucart France v Commission

(Case T‑234/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

—

Conditions

—

Unlawfulness

—

Damage

—

Causal link

—

Cumulative conditions

—

One of the conditions not satisfied

—

Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 16-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, annulment of Decision 2011/137/CFSP of the Council, of 28 February 2011, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 of the Council, of 2 March 2011, concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 1) and of Decision 2013/182/CFSP of the Council, of 22 April 2013, amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 50), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, second, compensation for the damage caused by those measures.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.

2. Mr Kadhaf Al Dam is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission as well as his own costs in that regard.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

Theophilou v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑293/13)

‛Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (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 33, 34)

2. Actions for damages — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to rule on the legality of a protocol of agreement concluded between a Member State and the European Stability Mechanism — Not included (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(4)) (see paras 42-47)

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 49, 50)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage resulting from failure of an institution to act — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

5. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to review the legality of measures not emanating from the institutions, organs or bodies of the Union — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 56, 58)

6. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Application for interim measures — Application submitted in the same document as the main action — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 61)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Case T‑583/13

Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts Ltd

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Medicinal products for paediatric use — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Article 37 — Extension of the duration of the market exclusivity of non-patented orphan medicinal products — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 September 2014

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1901/2006) Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letters replying for information purposes to a hypothetical question concerning an extension of the duration of the market exclusivity of non-patented orphan medicinal products — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1901/2006, Art. 37)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 18-20) See the text of the decision. (see paras 21-31)

Case T‑583/13

Shire Pharmaceutical Contracts Ltd

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Medicinal products for paediatric use — Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 — Article 37 — Extension of the duration of the market exclusivity of non-patented orphan medicinal products — Non-actionable measure — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 3 September 2014

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1901/2006) Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letters replying for information purposes to a hypothetical question concerning an extension of the duration of the market exclusivity of non-patented orphan medicinal products — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1901/2006, Art. 37)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

2 October 2014

Case T‑447/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Reimbursement of recoverable costs — Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal — Availability of a parallel remedy — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal: against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 June 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission (F‑143/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:81), seeking to have that order set aside.

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

Summary

1. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Specific procedure excluding the use of proceedings for liability

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 92(1))

2. Judicial proceedings — Assignment of cases within the Civil Service Tribunal — Assignment to the Judge-Rapporteur in a Chamber of three Judges as single Judge — Designation not mentioned in the case file — Fact not capable of calling the assignment into question

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 14(1))

1. The specific procedure for seeking taxation of costs, provided for in Article 92(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, excludes any claim for the same sums, or sums expended for the same purposes, in connection with proceedings brought under Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see para. 42)

See:

judgment of 11 July 2007 in Schneider Electric v Commission, T‑351/03, ECR, EU:T:2007:212, para. 297, partially set aside on appeal by judgment of 16 July 2009 in Commission v Schneider Electric, C‑440/07 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:459; and order of 15 July 2011 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑366/10 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2011:394, para. 27

2. In a case assigned to a Chamber of three Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal, which designates its Judge-Rapporteur to hear and determine the case as a single Judge in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, where the name of the Judge-Rapporteur sitting in the Chamber prior to the decision to refer the case to a single Judge is not stated in the documents in the case at first instance, it may not thereby be inferred that the Judge-Rapporteur from the Chamber of three Judges has not been designated as the single Judge.

(see para. 64)

See:

order of 19 June 2014 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑503/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:596, para. 15
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

2. Economic and monetary policy — Monetary policy — Coordination of monetary policies — Informal meeting of Member States using the euro within the Eurogroup — Autonomous entity — Imputation of the declarations adopted to the Commission or the European Central Bank — Exclusion (Art. 137 TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 39, 41-45)

3. Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Coordination of economic policies — European stability mechanism — Possibility of the Commission and the European Central Bank exercising review powers — Exclusion (Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Arts 1, 2 and 32(2)) (see paras 47, 48)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Declarations adopted by the Eurogroup — Not included (Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 51-53, 60)

5. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Lella Khatziioannou is ordered to pay, in addition to her own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).
(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2))

Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Mandatory — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Excusable error — Concept

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Signed original of the application not submitted before expiry of the time-limit — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(6))
24

In so far as is necessary, it should be noted that, on 18 January 2021, the Court received a letter from a lawyer, written in English and therefore in a language other than the language of the case, who claimed to represent the applicant and requested permission to submit observations on its behalf within a certain time limit, explaining that the applicant had not been informed of the Court’s previous correspondences because of ‘communication problems’ and the ‘pandemic’s implications’. He also stated that he had only received the letter of 21 December 2020 on 18 January 2021 and requested additional time in order to become better informed of the case.