ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Persons having an interest — Representative association having as its object the protection of its members — Admissibility in cases raising questions of principle liable to affect those members — Conditions — Broad interpretation

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

2. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Persons having an interest — Member of a representative association, authorised to intervene — Admissibility — Condition — Interest in the result of the case different from that of the association

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, second para., and 53, first para.)

Summary

1. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 22, 23, 69)

2. If additional applications for leave to intervene having the same objective on the part of their members are granted, that presupposes that those members have demonstrated that they have an interest in the outcome of the dispute that is different from the interests of the associations granted leave to intervene of which they are members.

(see para. 66)
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T‑141/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating or consigned from China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

1. 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 — 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 13-15)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Risk that fundamental rights might be affected — Risk not in itself constituting serious damage (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 4, 16 and 47; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17, 18, 20-23, 25)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Criteria for assessment — Account taken of the subjective interest of the applicant — Exclusion (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 28)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Article 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T‑27/14)

‛Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Article 22 of Directive 2003/55 EC — Letter from the Commission requesting a regulatory authority to annul its decision relating to the grant of a derogation — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Letter sent by the Commission to a national regulatory authority in the context of the procedure under Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55 — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/55, Art. 22(4)) (see para. 17)

2. Acts of the institutions — Presumption of validity — Non-existent measure — Concept (Art. 288 TFEU) (see para. 20)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter C(2013) 7221 final of 4 November 2013, addressed to the Czech Ministry of Trade and Industry, and the Czech Energy Regulatory Office, on the basis of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Fricopan Back v Commission

(Case T‑300/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Fricopan Back v Commission

(Case T‑300/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 January 2015 — St’art and Others v Commission

(Case T‑93/14)

‛Action for annulment — ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ programme — ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at establishing new instruments to encourage the funding of the cultural and creative industries — Debit note — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action for annulment of a decision to issue a debit note following termination of a financing agreement — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 27-29, 31, 33)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion of reclassification (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 35, 37)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the ‘decision of an unknown date, formalised on 29 November 2013 by the European Commission’, seeking to recover the sum of EUR 140 500.01 in the context of the ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ project, issuing a debit note to that end and insisting, if necessary, on the joint and several liability of the other members of the consortium.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 December 2014

Ewelina Jelenkowska-Luca

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appeal lodged in a different language to that in which the Civil Service Tribunal judgment under appeal was drafted — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014, Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission (F‑114/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:3), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Ewelina Jelenkowska-Luca is to bear her own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Rules on languages — Choice of language of the case — Obligation to keep to that choice in any appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 35(2)(c) and 136a)

An appeal which has not been lodged in the language of the case of the Civil Service Tribunal decision under appeal has not been filed in accordance with the General Court’s rules on languages and is not admissible.

That ground of inadmissibility cannot be circumvented by a request for a derogation from the rules on languages submitted after the expiry of the time-limit for bringing the appeal.

(see para. 25)

See:

order of 21 May 2010 in Petrides v Commission, C‑64/98 P-REV, EU:C:2010:279, para. 16

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

11 December 2014

Ewelina Jelenkowska-Luca

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appeal lodged in a different language to that in which the Civil Service Tribunal judgment under appeal was drafted — Appeal manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 January 2014, Jelenkowska-Luca v Commission (F‑114/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:3), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Ewelina Jelenkowska-Luca is to bear her own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Rules on languages — Choice of language of the case — Obligation to keep to that choice in any appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 35(2)(c) and 136a)

An appeal which has not been lodged in the language of the case of the Civil Service Tribunal decision under appeal has not been filed in accordance with the General Court’s rules on languages and is not admissible.

That ground of inadmissibility cannot be circumvented by a request for a derogation from the rules on languages submitted after the expiry of the time-limit for bringing the appeal.

(see para. 25)

See:

order of 21 May 2010 in Petrides v Commission, C‑64/98 P-REV, EU:C:2010:279, para. 16
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 June 2015 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission

(Case T‑573/14)

‛Actions for annulment — Environment — Criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel — Converted paper products — Excluded or limited substances and mixtures — Concentration limits for residual monomers — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the Commission establishing the ecological criteria for award of the EU Ecolabel to converted paper products — Action by companies producing or importing polyelectrolytes — No individual concern — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 66/2010) (see paras 20, 21, 27, 28, 30-33)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 March 2015 — Mammoet Salvage v Commission

(Case T‑234/14)

‛Action for declaration that an institution has failed to act and for damages — Contractual liability — Non-contractual liability — Plea of inadmissibility — Eighth European Development Fund — Works to remove 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou — Contract concluded between the applicant and Mauritania and taken up by the Commission for funding by the European Union — Execution of a contract — Report on the end date for payments from the European Union under the contract — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — No call to act — Letter of formal notice not addressed to the institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 30-35)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — EU judicature not having jurisdiction in the absence of an expression of the intention of the parties to confer jurisdiction upon it to rule on a contractual dispute (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 42-50)

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 58-62, 66)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Concept — Conduct complained of constituting the determinant cause of the loss (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 67)

Re:

ACTION under Article 265 of TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully refrained from acceding to the applicant’s request to extend the period for payments from the European Union pursuant to the contract for the work of removing 74 wrecks from the Bay of Nouadhibou (Mauritania) between the Islamic Republic of Mauritania and the applicant and accepted for financing by the Commission under the Eighth European Development Fund and, in the alternative, an action ordering the Commission to pay the invoices issued by the applicant under the above-mentioned contract on the basis of the contractual liability of the European Union and, in the further alternative, an action seeking recognition of the non-contractual liability of the European Union.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
The fact that the action against the earlier decision was declared to be out of time only after the bringing of the action against the confirmatory decision is not a ground for holding that the earlier decision had not become final at the date on which that action was brought. If bringing an action against a decision out of time had the effect of postponing its acquisition of final status, the aim pursued by the case-law relating to the admissibility of actions brought against confirmatory measures, that is, to prevent the bringing of actions which would have the effect of causing expired limitation periods to begin to run again, would be deprived of its effect.

A decision which merely confirms an earlier decision that has become final is not an actionable measure. In order not to allow the time-limit for bringing an action against the confirmed decision to recommence, an action against such a confirmatory decision must be declared inadmissible.

The existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become final. Conversely, where the request for reconsideration is not based on substantial new facts, an action against a decision refusing to carry out the reconsideration must be declared inadmissible.

In that regard, the Board of Appeal is not required to re-examine the application for registration in the light of the decision-making practice of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). Even if earlier registrations could be classified as new facts, because, although they were already in existence when that decision was adopted, they were not taken into consideration, they cannot be characterised as substantial facts. A fact is substantial if it is capable of substantially altering the legal situation as considered by the authors of the earlier measure, particularly by substantially altering the conditions which governed the earlier measure. That is true of a factor which raises doubts as to the merits of the solution adopted by the said measure.

The assessment as to whether a ground for refusing registration exists cannot be called into question on the sole basis that the Board of Appeal did not follow OHIM’s decision-making practice in a particular case. The examination of an application for registration must be undertaken in each individual case, as the registration of a sign as a mark depends on specific criteria, which are applicable in the factual circumstances of the particular case, the purpose of those criteria being to ascertain whether the sign at issue is caught by a ground for refusal set out in Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

(see paras 17, 21-24)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter informally calling on Member State to place traditional own resources at the disposal of the EU budget — Not included — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1150/2000; Council Decision 2007/436) (see paras 23-25, 34-47, 52, 56, 59)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Responsibility of the Member States — Scope (Council Regulation No 1150/2000, Arts 2(1), 9(1), and 17(1) and (2); Council Decision 2007/436, Arts 2(1)(a), and 8(1)) (see paras 27-33)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the alleged decision of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission, contained in letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 3139078 of 24 September 2014, by which the Commission formally demanded the Slovak Republic to make funds available to the Commission for the gross amount of EUR 1 453 723.12 (of which 25% should be deducted to cover expense incurred in collection) corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest by the first working day following the 19th day of the second month after the letter was sent.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania;

3. Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

4. Orders the Slovak Republic, the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and Romania each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2015 —

Italy v Commission

(Case T‑809/14)

‛Action for annulment — Language regime — Vacancy notice for the post of Director of the Translation Centre for bodies of the European Union — Linguistic requirements in the on-line presentation module for candidates — Alleged discrepancy with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal — Letter sent by the Commission following the closure of the application procedure — Inadmissible’

1. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 28-32, 36, 37)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Letter sent by the Commission following the closure of a procedure for lodging candidatures for a post of director refusing extension or reopening of the time-limit for submitting candidatures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 43, 47, 49-51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of a decision allegedly made by the Commission contained in a letter of 2 October 2014, sent to the Director General for the European Union of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Commission Director General of the Directorate-General (DG) for Human Resources and Security.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Case T‑339/14

Serhiy Vitaliyovych Kurchenko

v

Council of the European Union

‛Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Applicant not represented by a lawyer — Applicant having ceased to reply to the Court’s requests — No need to adjudicate’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition), 15 September 2016

Actions for annulment — Action against acts concerning the adoption of restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Applicant not represented by a lawyer — Inaction of the applicant — No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131(2); Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 2015/357)

There is no need to adjudicate on an action, in accordance with Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, if the applicant ceases to reply to the Court’s requests. That is the case, in the light of the applicant’s inaction, where the latter no longer gives instructions to his representatives, who therefore decide to cease representing him, and also fails to comply with a request from the Court to appoint a new lawyer or to reply to a question from the Court put in the context of a measure of organisation of procedure.

(see paras 21-23 and operative part)
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 —

Efler and Others v Commission

(Case T‑754/14 R)

‛Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Refusal of registration — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility’

1. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Aim — Full effectiveness of the future decision on the merits without prejudging its sense or depriving it of effect — Application seeking measures outside the scope of the main proceedings — Not permissible (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 19-22)

2. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Application for interim measures in the context of an action for annulment of a negative decision — Application for an injunction prohibiting the Commission from submitting to the Council the draft of an international agreement with a view to adopting a decision on the signature of the latter — Application seeking measures outside the scope of the main proceedings — No particularly serious prima facie case constituted by manifest and serious illegality — Not permissible (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 25, 29, 30, 35-37)

3. Citizenship of the Union — Rights of the citizen — Presentation of a citizens’ initiative — Regulation No 211/2011 — Obligations on the Commission following registration of a proposal for a citizens’ initiative (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011, Arts 5(5), and 10(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 27, 32-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures relating to Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the citizens’ initiative ‘STOP TTIP’.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.