ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Djédjé v Council

(Case T-351/11)

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Out of time – Clear inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 9-10)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Alcide Djédjé is ordered to bear his own costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 – Akhars v Council

(Case T-579/11 R)

Interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures against Syria – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation and provisional measures – Lack of urgency – Lack of serious and irreparable harm

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Balancing of all the interests involved – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-18)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 27-28, 36-38)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative conditions (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

In essence, application for provisional measures and suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), in so far as those texts refer to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 November 2011 – EMA v Commission

(Case T-116/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Research and technological development programme – Decision ending participation in a project – Debit note – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No 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 court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 6-8)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group – Application to relations between a non-profit-making association and its members – Lawfulness – Conditions (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-20)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 5 November 2010 terminating the contracts concluded for two research projects and the debit note of 13 December 2010 informing the applicant of the establishment of debts in the execution of those contracts.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2012 —

Assaad v Council



(Case T‑550/11)

Actions for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — List of persons and entities subject to the freeze of funds and economic resources — No legal interest in bringing proceedings

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against regulations concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria — Applicant neither the addressee of the contested measures nor individually and/or directly concerned by them — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 14-18)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), of Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
42

Fourthly, the argument put forward by the applicant that it has an individual interest due to the rejection of its objection by the Commission is based on an incorrect premiss. In particular, it is clear from the documents in the case that only the Federal Republic of Germany — and not the applicant — was recognised by the Commission as having lodged an admissible objection (recital 2 in the preamble to the contested regulation). The applicant has not called that finding into question in the context of the action. Moreover, only the Federal Republic of Germany — and not the applicant — was invited by the Commission to engage in appropriate consultations in order to reach an agreement within the meaning of Article 7(5) of Regulation No 510/2006. The applicant was not therefore recognised by the Commission as being an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of that article. The applicant has not called that finding into question in the context of the action. In view of those factors, the applicant cannot claim that the Commission rejected its objection in the present case. In any event, it should be noted that the second subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 provides that natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest and being established or resident in a Member State may object to the proposed registration by lodging a duly substantiated statement with that Member State within a time-limit permitting an objection in accordance with paragraph 1 of that article. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 510/2006 provides inter alia that ‘any Member State’ may object to the registration proposed, by lodging a duly substantiated statement with the Commission. It follows that, contrary to what the applicant contends, in essence, in its pleadings, natural or legal persons having a legitimate interest and being established or resident in a Member State are not entitled to lodge an objection directly with the Commission (see, to that effect, order of 11 September 2007 in Case T-35/06 Honig-Verband v Commission [2007] ECR II-2865, paragraph 51).
A mission instituted by a common action of the Council under the EU security and defence policy, which does not have legal personality and in respect of which there is no provision that it can be a party to proceedings before the European Union Courts, constitutes a mere action which cannot be considered a body, office or agency of the European Union within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

Measures adopted pursuant to delegated powers are normally attributed to the delegating institution, on which it falls to defend the measure in question before the Courts. Where the Commission delegates certain tasks relating to the implementation of the budget of a mission under the EU security and defence policy as provided for in Article 54(2)(d) of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended, and where the head of that mission may conclude technical arrangements regarding the provision of equipment, services and premises only with the Commission’s approval, measures adopted by the head of that mission in the context of a procedure for the award of a service contract are attributable to the Commission, which has legal capacity to be a defendant under the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. Those measures may, therefore, be the subject of judicial review in accordance with the requirements of the general principle that any measure adopted by an institution, body or agency of the European Union which is intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, must be subject to review.

(see paras 26, 31-35)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

29 March 2012

Ayo Soerensen Ferraresi

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 November 2009 in Case F‑5/09 Soerensen Ferraresi [2009] ECR-SC I‑A‑1-453 and II‑A‑1‑2461, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Ayo Soerensen Feraresi is to bear her own costs.

Summary

Appeals — Time-limits — Method of calculation

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2))

Under the first paragraph of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be brought before the General Court, within two months of notification of the decision appealed against, against final decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal and decisions of that Tribunal disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility. Moreover, under Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, this prescribed time-limit is to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. The prescribed time-limit and the period added on account of distance are not distinct, and it follows that when the prescribed time-limit expires, the single period of 10 days is to be added.

(see para. 5)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Environment — Implementing Regulation No 1143/2011 approving the active substance prochloraz — Request for an internal review under Regulation No 1367/2006 — Admissibility — Conditions — Non-governmental organisation making the application having existed for more than two years — Burden of proof borne by the organisation (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Arts 10 and 11(1)(c)) (see paras 19, 21)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 March 2012 rejecting as inadmissible the request made by the applicant for review by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 of 10 November 2011 approving the active substance prochloraz, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 26).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
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 — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23)

2. Application 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 — Public law body not liable to insolvency by virtue of national law — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36, 37)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision ordering recovery of State aid — Whether there exists any means of obtaining legal redress before the national court against national implementing measures — Power of the EU judicature to take such means of redress into consideration when assessing whether the application for interim measures is well founded — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-40)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation capable of seriously compromising the exercise by a public law body of its public service tasks — Possibility of other public bodies guaranteeing the public service task — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 45-47)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Public law body acting in the performance of its public service tasks, without profit motive — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision (2102/485/EU) of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/2010) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (OJ 2012 L 236, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

(Case T-62/12)

Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access — Inadmissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Confirmatory measure

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision refusing access to Council documents after a fresh application — Decision not identifying new factors and referring to the statement of reasons for the first decision — Purely confirmatory measure — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(7), 6(1), 7 and 8(1)) (see paras 19-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of the letter of the Council of 1 December 2011 (reference 24/c/01/11) refusing to grant the applicant full access to the opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (document No 6865/09) on the draft amendments of the European Parliament to the European Commission’s draft regulation amending 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

2. Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Applicant in bad faith at the time of lodging the trade mark application — Figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 52(1)(b)) (see paras 54-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2012 (Case R 826/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between (i) MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s. and (ii) Elton Hodinářská a.s.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders MPM-Quality v.o.s. and Eutech a.s to pay the costs.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 December 2013

Case T‑32/13 P

Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Appointment to post of Director of Directorate A ‘Civil Justice’ in the Commission’s Directorate General ‘Justice’ — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — Misuse of powers — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F‑120/11 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Grounds — Misuse of powers — Definition

The concept of misuse of powers has a very precise meaning and encompasses the use by an administrative authority of its powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred upon it. A decision is vitiated by misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the purpose of achieving ends other than those stated. In that regard, it is not sufficient to refer to certain facts in support of claims; evidence of a sufficiently specific, objective and consistent nature must also be adduced to support their truth or, at the very least, their probability, failing which the material accuracy of the statements of the institution concerned cannot be challenged. Thus, the overall assessment of evidence of misuse of powers cannot be based on mere assertions or on evidence that is insufficiently clear or is neither objective nor relevant.

(see paras 31-33)

See:

T‑111/99 Samper v Parliament [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑135 and II‑611, para. 64; T‑471/04 Karatzoglou v EAR [2008] ECR-SC I‑A‑2-79 and II‑A‑2-485, para. 49; T‑40/07 P and T‑62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-89 and II‑B‑1-551, paras 172 and 173
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Actionable measures

—

Concept

—

Measures producing binding legal effects

—

Commission letter requiring the addressee to pay a fine, plus late-payment interest, imposed for breach of the competition rules

—

Act preparatory to purely implementing acts

—

Inadmissibility (Arts 256 EC, 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 299, fourth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51; Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 86(2)(b)) (see paras 19, 20, 24-28, 35, 39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 21 December 2012 (Case COMP/39.396 ‐ Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), whereby the Commission asked the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of the fine imposed by Commission decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, together with late-payment interest, or to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee covering that amount.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. 1. garantovaná a.s. is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2013 — Talanton v Commission

(Case T-165/13 R)

‛Interim relief — Arbitration clause — Contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Eligible costs — Repayment of sums paid — Application for stay of execution — No urgency’

1. 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 — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 8-10)

2. Applications for interim measures — Community law — Application — Formal requirements — Vague and imprecise indication of the subject-matter of the application — Inadmissible (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 104(3)) (see para. 12)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Whether the risk materialises dependent on uncertain, future events — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16, 17)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Debit note not constituting a writ of execution — Financial loss not imminent — No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19, 22-26)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts concerning the repayment of sums paid to the applicant under contracts entered into under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.