ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/42

Order of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-698/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible - Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Action lodged out of time - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

2014/C 409/61

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:161, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

3. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

(1) OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 339/17

Order of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Stance v OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)

(Case T-206/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 339/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad Andhra Pradesh, India)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 February 2013 (Case R 885/2012-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Pokarna Ltd and Stance, Inc.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the defendant.

(1) OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/20

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — BT v Commission

(Case T-59/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal))

(2014/C 431/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: BT (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: N. Visan and G. Coca, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 3 December 2012 in Case F-45/12 BT v Commission, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:168, seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. BT shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 448/22

Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou v Commission and ECB

(Case T-328/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))

(2014/C 448/29)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Re:

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

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
3.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2014 of 28 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/30

Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Evangelou v Commission and ECB

(Case T-292/13) (1)

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

(2015/C 026/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Evangelou (Derynia, Cyprus); and Yvonne Evangelou (Derynia) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Re:

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

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Christos Evangelou and Ms Yvonne Evangelou shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

(1) OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/42

Order of the General Court of 17 April 2015 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

(Case T-536/13) (1)

(2015/C 205/56)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan v OHIM — Kik Textilien (KICKS)

(Case T-531/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 107/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 992/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH et Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/55

Order of the General Court of 2 October 2015 — Société européenne des chaux et liants v ECHA

(Case T-540/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - REACH - Imposition of an administrative charge for an error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Language regime - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 389/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société européenne des chaux et liants (Bourgoin-Jallieu, France) (represented by: J. Dezarnaud, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the partial annulment of Decision SME (2013) 1665 of the ECHA of 21 May 2013, in so far as it imposes an administrative charge on the applicant.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Société européenne des chaux et liants to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

(1) OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/60

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA

(Case T-73/13) (1)

(2015/C 311/66)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/41

Order of the General Court of 18 October 2017 — United Parcel Service v Commission

(Case T-194/13 OST) (1)

((Article 165 of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to adjudicate - Intervention in support of the unsuccessful party - Costs associated with the intervention - Amendment of the form of order sought in the course of proceeding))

(2018/C 005/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Parcel Service Inc. (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) (represented initially by A. Ryan, B. Graham, Solicitors, W. Knibbeler and P. Stamou, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Ryan, W. Knibbeler, P. Stamou, A. Pliego Selie, F. Hoseinian and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan, N. von Lingen and H. Leupold, and subsequently by T. Christoforou, N. Khan, A. Biolan, and H. Leupold, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: FedEx Corp. (Memphis, Tennessee, United States) (represented initially by F. Carlin, Barrister, G. Bushell, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, and subsequently by F. Carlin, G. Bushell and N. Niejahr, lawyers)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 165 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Operative part of the order

1. Paragraph 223 of the judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T-194/13, EU:T:2017:144 is amended as follows: ‘Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Furthermore, under Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is more than one unsuccessful party the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared. Since the Commission and the intervener have been unsuccessful, first, the Commission must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, except the costs in connection with the intervention. Secondly, the intervener must be ordered to bear, in addition to its own costs, the applicant’s costs in connection with its intervention’.

2. Paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T-194/13, EU:T:2017:144 is amended as follows: ‘The European Commission shall pay, in addition to its own costs, those of United Parcel Service, Inc., except the costs in connection with the intervention’.

3. Paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of 7 March 2017, United Parcel Service v Commission, T-194/13, EU:T:2017:144 is amended as follows: ‘FedEx Corp. shall pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of United Parcel Service, Inc., in connection with its intervention’.

4. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Commission and FedEx shall bear their own costs in connection with the present case.

(1) OJ C 147, 25.5.213.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 305/53

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Lithuania v Commission

(Case T-533/13) (1)

(2016/C 305/71)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.
Case T-274/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 16 June 2015 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission (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)

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)’

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, V. Bottka and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

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 of 8 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 of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/58

Order of the General Court of 2 December 2015 — Novartis v OHIM– Mabxience (HERTIXAN)

(Case T-41/15) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 038/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mabxience SA (Montevideo, Uruguay)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 (Case R 2550/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis AG and Mabxience SA.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Novartis AG is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/42

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 September 2015 — Pari Pharma v EMA

(Case T-235/15 R)

((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests))

(2015/C 381/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, A. Rusanov and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Re:

Application, in essence, for the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to 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), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

Operative part of the order

1. The operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 24 April 2015 is suspended, in so far as that decision grants a third party access, pursuant to 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, to the assessment report (EMA/CHMP/702525/2014) concerning the similarity of Vantobra with Cayston and TOBI Podhaler and the assessment report (EMA/CHMP/778270/2014) concerning the clinical superiority of Vantobra over TOBI Podhaler.

2. The EMA is ordered not to disclose the two reports mentioned in point 1.

3. Novartis Europharm Ltd’s request for access to the full case file is rejected.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 136/34

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission

(Case T-82/15) (1)

((Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) - Grant agreement for the Atraco project - Debit notes and decisions contained in letters - No need to adjudicate in part - Contractual nature of the dispute - Partial inadmissibility))

(2016/C 136/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 by which the Commission confirmed its refusal to finance costs invoked by the applicant, of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3241211514 of 23 October 2012, and of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 requesting the applicant to return the funds paid and to pay liquidated damages of EUR 12 814,10.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims directed against the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 October 2012 and the debit note of 23 October 2012;

2. Dismisses the action for the remainder, as being manifestly inadmissible;

3. Orders InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/18

Order of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Cofely Solelec and Others v Parliament

(Case T-224/15) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Withdrawal of the contested act - Case not proceeding to judgment))

(2016/C 059/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cofely Solelec (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) and Cofely Fabricom (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by V. Elvinger and S. Marx, and subsequently by S. Marx, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Chrétien and M. Mraz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Decision No 103299 of 27 April 2015 of the Directorate General for Infrastructures and Logistics of the European Parliament rejecting the applicants’ bid for lot 75 ‘electricity — power’ in respect of the public procurement procedure INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04 concerning the project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

2. The European Parliament is to bear its own costs and is to pay those incurred by Cofely Solelec, Mannelli & Associés SA and Cofely Fabricom.

(1) OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/46

Order of the General Court of 5 April 2016 — NICO v Council

(Case T-524/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/63)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/45

Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission

(Case T-436/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Agriculture - Protective measures against pests of plants - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Request to modify the form of order sought - Inadmissibility))

(2016/C 156/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi (Otranto, Italy) and Negro Daniele (Otranto) (represented by: V. Pellegrino and A. Micolani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 15 L 125, p. 3), in so far as the vine (Vitis) is included in Annex I to that decision and Article 9 of the latter prohibits movement within the European Union, within or out of the demarcated areas.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele are ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.