ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission

(Case T‑286/14 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 —

Röchling Oertl Kunststofftechnik v Commission

(Case T‑286/14 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.
Order of the President of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — AF Steelcase v OHIM (Case T‑652/14 R)

‛Interim measures — Public procurement — Supply and installation of furniture — Rejection of a submitted tender — Application for suspension of operation — No prima facie case’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — 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 15-17)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the procedure for the award of a public service contract, not to accept a tender — Obligation to communicate, following a written request, the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender accepted and the name of the tenderer (Art. 296 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c)) (see paras 23, 24)

3. Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to sound administration — Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1)) (see para. 31)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, essentially, suspension of the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 July 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the tender procedure concerning the supply and installation of furniture and accessories in OHIM’s buildings.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

13 May 2015

Robert Klar

and

Francisco Fernandez Fernandez

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Staff Committee of the Commission — Revocation by the Luxembourg local section of one of its members appointed to the central staff committee — Decision refusing to recognise the lawfulness of the revocation decision — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Non respect of the pre-litigation procedure — Act adversely affecting a person — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2014 in Klar and Fernandez Fernandez v Commission (F‑114/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:192), seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Robert Klar and Mr Francisco Fernandez Fernandez are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Act having adverse effects — Definition — Decision of the appointing authority refusing to recognise the lawfulness of a decision taken by the local section of an institution’s staff committee to revoke one of its members appointed to the central staff committee — Included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea submitted for the first time in the context of the appeal — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 48(2), 139(2) and 144)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 April 2015 — Dyckerhoff Polska v Commission

(Case T‑284/14)

‛Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility — Plea of illegality’

1. 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 11, 12)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date of publication — Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant — Subsidiary matter (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 14-16)

3. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para., and 53) (see para. 17)

4. Plea of illegality — Incidental nature — Main action inadmissible — Inadmissibility of the plea (Art. 277 TFEU) (see para. 19)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2015 — Grigoriadis and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑413/14)

‛Action for failure to act and for damages — Restructuring of the Greek public debt — Involvement of the private sector — Loss consisting in the reduction of sums owed — Statements by the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the EU institutions — Eurogroup statement — Failure to specify the causal link with the loss pleaded — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Conditions — Clear and express request (Art. 265(2) TFEU) (see paras 28, 29)

2. 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 — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — No indications as to the character and extent of the damage suffered or as to the causal link — Inadmissibility (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 32, 33, 36, 37)

Re:

First, an application for a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to act in order for the bonds held by the applicants not to be affected by the plan for private sector involvement in the debt financing programme (PSI), reducing the value of the Greek State’s debt, and second, an application seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants following that unlawful failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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 20-22, 31-44, 54, 57)

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 24-30)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly made by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget contained in the letter BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 3079038 of 19 September 2014, by which the Commission ordered Romania to provide it with the gross amount of EUR 14 883.79 (from which 25% should be deducted for collection costs) corresponding to a loss of traditional own resources, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of that letter.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by the Slovak Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.

3. Romania is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. Romania, the Commission, the Slovak Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany are ordered each to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
2.

Under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the first and second paragraphs, institute proceedings against an act which is not addressed to that person in two alternative cases, namely, first, if the act in question is of direct and individual concern to that person and, second, if it is a regulatory act which is of direct concern to that person and does not entail implementing measures. Each of those two cases presupposes that the contested measure has a direct impact on the applicant. In that regard, the concept of direct effect within the meaning of the second of those cases cannot be more restrictively interpreted than in the first case. Moreover, there is nothing to support the view that, in this case, the condition of direct effect should be interpreted less restrictively in a case where the contested guidelines constitute a regulatory measure that does not involve implementing measures. In that context, the condition that the contested decision must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person requires that the contested measure should directly affect the legal situation of the individual and leave no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules. The same applies where the opportunity for addressees not to give effect to an EU measure is purely theoretical and their intention to act in conformity with it is not in doubt. (see paras 16-18, 20-21)
Case T‑181/14 DEP

Nürburgring GmbH

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Procedure — Taxation of costs)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 26 January 2017

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Knowledge of the case by lawyers

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Assessment having regard primarily to the total number of hours’ work objectively necessary for the purposes of the proceedings

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Recoverable costs — Elements to be taken into consideration — Agreement concerning fees reached between a party and his lawyer — Not included

There is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered within the meaning of Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, where the party ordered to pay the intervener’s costs informs the latter, before the lodging of the application for the taxation of costs, that he is not able to signify agreement to any amount of recoverable costs and make a payment without a formal decision of the Court. Moreover, it cannot be inferred from that fact that, after the lodging of the application for the taxation of costs, the party ordered to pay those costs informed the General Court that he did not intend to submit observations on the said application that he has signified his agreement as to the amount of costs claimed or as to the calculation of the costs recoverable. (see para. 8)

According to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the expenses necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings, in particular the travel and subsistence expenses and the remuneration of agents, advisers or lawyers, are regarded as recoverable costs. It follows from that provision that recoverable costs are limited, first, to those incurred for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court and, second, to those which were necessary for that purpose. In that regard, the amount claimed by way of VAT is regarded as recoverable costs only where the natural or legal person claiming that amount establishes that he is not subject to that tax. (see paras 9, 12)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 10, 11)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 19, 20, 23)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 25)

Recovery must be refused for costs pertaining to the period subsequent to the oral procedure if no procedural document was adopted after the hearing. (see para. 28)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2017 —

Natorski and Pokrywa v EUIPO — PIS Opakowania (Part of door)

(Case T‑251/14 DEP)

(Procedure — Taxation of costs — Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings—Costs—Dispute over recoverable costs

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 170)

(see paras 13, 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for taxation of costs following the judgment of 15 October 2015, Promarc Technics v OHIM — PIS (Part of door) (T‑251/14, not published, EU:T:2015:780).

Operative part

1. The application for taxation of costs is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
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 – Absence – Court obliged to identify the defendant – Absence – Misinterpretation of capacity to act as defendant by the applicant

(Art. 268 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(b))

(see paras 47-49, 52, 54, 56-60)
Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 —

Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T‑274/15 R)

‛Interim measures — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in bioethanol and ethanol — Administrative procedure — Order to submit to an inspection — Refusal to suspend the investigation — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility’

1. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Interest in bringing proceedings — Damage having already occurred — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see para. 16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought — Application seeking suspension of a measure already implemented — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see para. 17)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought — Negative administrative decision — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No interest — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see para. 18)

4. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application seeking measures outside the context of the main dispute — Inadmissibility (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see paras 20-25)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, first, suspension of the implementation of decision C(2015) 1769 final of the Commission of 12 March 2015 addressed to Alcogroup and all the undertakings directly or indirectly controlled by it including Alcodis, relating to proceedings under Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (AT.40244 — AQUAVIT) and its decision of8 May 2015 addressed to Alcogroup in investigations AT.A0244 — Bioethanol — and AT.A0054 — Oil and Biofuel Markets and, second, an order that the Commission suspend all investigations in proceedings AT. A0054 and AT.A0244.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2016 —

Proforec v Commission

(Case T‑120/15)

‛Action for annulment — Registration of a protected geographical indication — Focaccia di Recco col formaggio — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 18-20, 27, 31-33, 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/39 of 13 January 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (PGI)) (OJ 2015 L 8, p. 7).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Italian Republic and the Consorzio della Focaccia di Recco col formaggio.

3. Proforec Srl is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission other than those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2015 —

Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

(Case T‑188/15)

‛State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Campania Region — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato — Commission declaring the measure incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in a similar situation to that of the aid beneficiary’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Action brought by undertakings in an analogous situation to that of the aid beneficiary — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 18, 20-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by an association representing the collective interests of persons not themselves individually concerned — Association not having an interest of its own in pursuing the action — Inadmissibility (Arts 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24-26)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Action by an association entrusted with defending the collective interests of undertakings — Admissibility — Conditions — Action brought in parallel by a Member — Inadmissibility of the action of the association (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 27)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1075 of 19 January 2015 on State aid SA.35843 (2014/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Italy — Additional public service compensation for Buonotourist (OJ 2015 L 179, p. 128).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2016 —

Portugal v Commission

(Case T‑551/15)

‛Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Subsequent publication of the decision in the Official Journal — No effect (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU) (see paras 20-23, 25-28, 31-33, 36-38, 40)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Concept (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2) third subpara., TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Acts of the institutions — No general obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU) (see para. 39)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.