ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time limits – Mandatory – 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 15-16)

2. Actions for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Regulation concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities or bodies in the light of the situation in Tunisia – Date of communication of the grounds justifying the regulation in respect of those persons, entities or bodies (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 101/2011) (see paras 17-20)

3. Procedure – Time limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Meaning – Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure – Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 29, 32)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Union judicature – Regulation concerning restrictive measures against certain persons, entities or bodies in the light of the situation in Tunisia – No jurisdiction to substitute another measure for the contested measure to amend it – Pleas for the unblocking of certain frozen funds or economic resources – Inadmissibility (Arts 261 TFEU and 264, first para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 101/2011) (see para. 62)

5. Procedure – 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 in respect of damage caused by an EU institution – No indications as to the loss suffered – Inadmissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c), and (6) (see paras 69-72, 76)

6. Procedure – Compulsory intervention – Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 24(6), 115 and 116) (see paras 79-80)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Interim measures

–

Main action dismissed in the meantime

–

Application which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 2-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 155 final, of 12 January 2011, ordering recovery of the amount of EUR 141 350 granted to the applicant by way of financing for a project called ‘Train in the trainer’.

Operative part

Operative part:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

19 March 2012

Yvette Barthel and Others

v

Court of Justice of the European Union

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Refusal to grant the appellants an allowance for shift work — Time-limit for lodging a complaint — Out of time — Appeal in part manifestly unfounded and in part manifestly inadmissible’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 May 2011 in Case F‑59/10 Barthel and Others v Court of Justice [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Yvette Barthel, Ms Marianne Reiffers and Mr Lieven Massez are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the present proceedings.

Summary

Appeals — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Tribunal stating its reasons by implication — Lawfulness — Conditions (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1)) Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of pleas in law and arguments submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility (Art. 256 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 138(1)(c))
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT

(Appeal Chamber)

11 October 2012

Francesca Cervelli

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Request for review — New facts — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2011 in Case F‑98/10 Cervelli v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Francesca Cervelli is to bear her own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Actions — Prior administrative complaint — Time-limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

The existence of substantial new facts may justify the submission of a request for reconsideration of a previous decision which has become definitive. In that regard, an annulling judgment of a European Union Court is capable of constituting a new fact allowing the reopening of the time-limits for complaint or appeal only in respect of, first, the parties to the proceedings and, secondly, other persons directly concerned by the annulled measure. Although, under the principle of a single administration, as laid down in Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, all the officials of all the institutions of the Union are governed by the same provisions, such a principle does not mean that the institutions are required to make identical use of the discretion afforded to them by the Staff Regulations. On the contrary, the institutions have autonomy in the organisation of their departments. A decision, adopted voluntarily by an institution other than the institution of the person concerned, to extend the legal effects of a judgment to all its officials cannot therefore be considered to be a new fact enabling the person concerned to request a review of the administrative decision concerning him.

(see paras 18, 20, 25)

See:

43/64 Müller v Councils [1965] ECR 385, 397; 5/70 Prelle v Commission [1970] ECR 1075, para. 13; 231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14; 125/87 Brown v Court of Justice [1988] ECR 1619, para. 14

T‑16/97 Chauvin v Commission [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑237 and II‑681, paras 37 and 39 to 45; T‑220/95 Gimenez v Committee of the Regions [1997] ECR-SC I‑A‑275 and II‑775, para. 72; T‑271/08 P Boudova and Others v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-71 and II‑B‑1-441, para. 48
Order of the General Court (on an interim application) of 13 June 2012 — Morison Menon Chartered Accountants and Others v Council

(Case T-656/11 R II)

‛Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Application for an amended decision during the proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 7, 8)

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and second, Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that they add to the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are to be frozen the entity designated as ‘Morison Menon Chartered Accountant’.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Action brought by an importer not associated with the exporter, not having participated in the administrative procedure and not being the main importer or final user of the product — No factors constituting a particular situation characterising the applicant in relation to any other operator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 723/2011) (see paras 23-40)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties — Included — Act entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the said treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of action for annulment — Respect for right to effective judicial protection (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 723/2011) (see paras 43, 55-58, 61, 62, 65)

3. Customs union — Arising of a customs debt on the importation linked with release into free circulation of goods — Existence of the customs debt challenged — Exclusive competence of the national court (Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 201, 236 and 243 to 246) (see paras 50-52)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Brugola Service International Srl (BSI) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2012 — Régie Networks and NRJ Global v Commission

(Case T-340/11)

‛Action for damages — State aid — Limitation — Damage for which compensation may be awarded — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction’

1. 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 25, 30, 50)

2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Responsibility for an individual act — Date of appearance of the prejudicial effects of the act — Date cognisance taken of the unlawfulness of the conduct — Irrelevant — Relationship between the action for compensation and the action for annulment (Arts 63 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 28, 29, 31, 36, 39, 40)

3. Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Claim for indemnity in respect of the cost of proceedings brought before the national courts — General Court not having jurisdiction — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 104(5)) (see paras 44, 45)

4. Non-contractual liability — Damage — Damage for which compensation is available — Costs incurred for the proceedings — Not included (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 48, 49)

Re:

ACTION for damages brought on the basis of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of the unlawful decision of the Commission of 10 November 1997 concerning State aid N 679/97 and, secondly, on account of an alleged infringement of the principle of sound administration stemming from a failure on the part of the Commission to compensate for the harmful effects of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
An association cannot in principle bring an action for annulment unless it can claim certain special circumstances, inter alia of a procedural nature, or unless the members which it represents or some of those members are in a position to bring an admissible action. The action must be likely, by its result, to procure an advantage for the party which brought it. Moreover, the condition laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned by the decision being challenged, requires inter alia that the contested measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual.

That is not the case with an action by a group of Gouda manufacturers and distributors against Regulation No 1122/2010, entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Gouda Holland (PGI)]. Since that regulation clearly states that the word ‘Gouda’ may continue to be used, annulment of the contested regulation would not be of any advantage to the applicant’s members. Moreover, since Regulation No 1122/2010 provides that the name ‘Gouda’ may continue to be used for the marketing of cheeses, that regulation does not directly affect the legal situation of that group’s members.

Similarly, with regard to the argument that that regulation entails a risk that certain packaging including the word ‘Gouda’, used with illustrations alluding to the Netherlands, might be regarded as contrary to Regulation No 510/2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the annulment of Regulation No 1122/2010 would not be of any advantage to the group’s members, in so far as such annulment would not remove the obligation that exists under EU law not to mislead consumers as to the origin or provenance of food.

Finally, no unfavourable effect of Regulation No 1122/2010 on the legal position of the group’s members can be inferred from the fact that producers who are entitled to use the quality label for the protected geographical indication ‘Gouda Holland’ have a competitive advantage. The regulation is intended not to abolish a right held by the group’s members, but to grant a new right to all operators, including the group’s members if they so wish, whose products comply with the specification set out in that regulation.

(see paras 18, 22, 24, 29-31, 38, 43, 45)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2013 — Lyder Enterprises v OCVV — Liner Plants (1993) (SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR)

(Case T-367/11)

‛Plant varieties — Application for a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR — Objections — Rejection of the application by the Board of Appeal of the CPVO — Competence of the CPVO — Taking of evidence — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 16, 17)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — New factor — Extension of the initial pleadings (see paras 20, 21)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to the annexes as a whole — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 22)

4. Actions for annulment — Pleas in law — Lack of competence of the institution which adopted the contested measure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 28)

5. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Decision to grant or refuse protection — Appeals procedure — Competence of the CPVO and its Boards of Appeal — Scope — Determination of the status of the applicant for protection of plant varieties — Included — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence in that regard made by the Office (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Arts 11, 50, 53, 54 and 76) (see paras 36-38)

6. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Decision to grant or refuse protection — Appeals procedure — Probative value of the evidence — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 78(1)(g)) (see para. 49)

7. Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Decisions of the CPVO or its Boards of Appeal — Judicial review — Scope — Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered — Exclusion — Modification of the terms of the dispute as brought before the Office or its Boards of Appeal — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 73) (see paras 58-60)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 4 May 2011 (Case A 7/2010), concerning the grant of a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SOUTHERN SPLENDOUR.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 – HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-302/11 R)

Interim relief – Competition – Request for information – Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Application for stay of execution – 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 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 11-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 16-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character – Uncertainty as to reparation of the damage in context of such an action – No effect (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 20-22)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from a request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 concerning sensitive data of the undertaking – None (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(4)) (see paras 24-28)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Possibility of the Commission imposing penalty payments and fines in case of non-compliance with the deadline for sending the information – Realisation of the damage hypothetical in nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18(4) and 23(1)(b)) (see paras 30-31)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 – Cement and related products).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is rejected.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 – Gbagbo v Council

(Case T-348/11)

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 11-12)

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. 16)

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 Laurent Gbagbo is ordered to bear his own costs.
II - 374*INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2011 —  
DMA Die Marketing Agentur and Hofmann v Austria
(Case T-472/11  R)
(Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate)
Applications for interim measures — Interim measures — Main action dismissed in 
the meantime — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate 
(Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4)
Re:
APPPLICATION for suspension of forced execution of the judgment of the Oberster 
Gerichtshof (Austrian Supreme Court), of 15 September 2005, in case reference 4 Ob 
145/05k.
Operative part
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
2. DMA Die Marketing Agentur GmbH and Axel Hofmann are ordered to bear 
their own costs.
J
udgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2011 – 
Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke v OHIM – Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)
(Case T-426/09)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the 
Community figurative mark BAM — Earlier national figurative mark BAM — 
Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — No similarity of the 
goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
II - 375*INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — 
Relative grounds for refusal  — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of 
confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see 
paras 61-62)
Re:
A
CTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM 
of 11  August 2009 (Case R 1005/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings b e-
tween Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe and 
Koninklijke BAM Groep NV.
O
perative part
The Court:
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straßenbaustoffe 
to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Office for H
armonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) 
and by Koninklijke BAM Groep NV, including, as regards the latter, the costs 
necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of 
Appeal.
J
udgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 2011 —  
Intermark v OHIM — Natex International (NATY’S)
(Case T-72/10)
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community 
word mark NATY’S — Earlier Community figurative mark Naty — Relative ground 
for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of goods — Article 8(1)(b) of 
Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial rejection of opposition)