ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action brought against a letter of the Commission refusing to take action on a request for the transmission of documents sought for the purposes of using them in a procedure before the national competition authority — Subsequent decision of that authority holding those documents not relevant for giving a ruling — No further interest in bringing an action — Hypothesis of a possible action against the decision of the authority — No effect (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 36, 40, 56-60, 62, 65-67)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Application for access to documents already held by the applicant, designed to obtain copies free of the obligation not to disclose — Lawfulness — No obligation to state reasons (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 2(1) and (2), and 10(1),(2) and (3)) (see paras 46-48)

4. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 71)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the forms of order sought — No clear and precise formulation — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(d)) (see para. 73)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 7 December 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 — Consumer detergents — and Case 09/0007 F) whereby the Commission refused to act on the applicants’ request seeking the transmission to the French competition authority, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, of several documents produced in Case COMP/39.579, and, secondly, for an order by the General Court requiring the Commission to authorise the applicants to rely on the documents at issue in the proceedings before the French competition authority or before the competent French court in the context of an appeal against the decision of the French competition authority, and for any other measure that the Court deems appropriate.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene submitted by Unilever PLC and Unilever NV.

3. Henkel AG & Co. KGaA and Henkel France are ordered to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2014 —

Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T‑84/12)

‛Action for annulment and compensation — Privileges and immunities — Member of the European Parliament — Decision to waive immunity — Re-examination — Decision not to defend immunity — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 27-29)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures of the Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties — Decision waiving the immunity of an MEP — Included (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union) (see para. 39)

3. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 40)

4. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — 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 damage suffered and the causal link — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 61, 68)

Re:

Firstly, an application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 1 December 2011 not to defend the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to reject his application for re-examination of the decision to waive immunity and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part inadmissible.

2. Mr Viktor Uspaskich is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.
57

In the second place, it follows from analysis of the confidentiality order sent by the High Court to the Commission as an annex to the request for transmission of the documents at issue that the confidentiality ring, the composition of which may be subject to amendment in the future, is made up of a large number of people (92 names appear on that list) who hold various positions, such as that of external lawyer, in-house counsel (as in the case, for example, of the two employees of the intervener), secretary or even IT support. Admittedly, they are all bound by a duty of confidentiality and, according to the intervener, none of them carry out commercial functions. However, in the light of the considerations at EU law level concerning the protection of the confidentiality of exchanges between lawyers and clients, and the requirement of independence implying the absence of any employment relationship, even where obligations of professional conduct and discipline exist, the question — whether, in the light of the arrangements in this instance for dissemination at national level of the information requested which were known to the Commission, the Commission should have examined in detail the specific consequences of that guarantee for the protection of professional secrecy and perhaps have concluded that the request for transmission, as formulated, should be refused lest it give rise to an infringement of Article 339 TFEU — could reasonably be raised in the context of the main proceedings. It must be added that the Commission cannot, in order to demonstrate that the proposed disclosure cannot be equated to disclosure to the parties to the English proceedings, simply maintain that the purpose of a confidentiality ring is to enable the parties’ lawyers to inspect the documents disclosed, when in fact the composition of that ring is neither immutable nor restricted to those having the status of lawyer.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

16 September 2013

Vincent Bouillez

v

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2007 promotion year — Decision not to promote the appellant to Grade AST 7 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 266 TFEU — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Contradictory reasons — Consideration of comparative merits — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2012 in Case F‑75/11 Bouillez v Council [2012] ECR-SC, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Vincent Bouillez is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in these proceedings.

Summary

Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

The obligation to state reasons is an essential procedural requirement, as distinct from the question whether the reasons given are correct, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested measure. Claims and arguments intended to deny that a measure is well founded are thus of no effect in the context of a plea alleging the lack or inadequacy of a statement of reasons. (see para. 20) See: 18 January 2012, T‑422/07 Djebel — SGPS v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 54 and the case-law cited therein

Under Article 257(3) TFEU and Article 11(1) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the General Court must be limited to points of law. The court of first instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The assessment of the facts by the first instance court does not, therefore, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review on appeal by the General Court. Where the first instance court has established or assessed the facts, the General Court is empowered only to review the legal classification of those facts and the legal consequences which the first instance court drew from them. (see paras 34, 49) See: C-59/96 P Koelman v Commission [1997] ECR I-4809, para. 31; C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P BAI and Commission v Bayer [2004] ECR I-23, para. 47 T-274/11 P Mioni v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-B-1-0000 and II-B-1-0000, para. 18; T‑642/11 P Mische v Parliament [2012] ECR-SC, para. 24 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑485/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Single Judge) of 25 June 2013 in Case F‑115/12 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, para 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — France v Commission

(Case T-366/13 R)

‛Interim relief — State aid — Aid implemented in favour of companies responsible for the public service of providing maritime transport services between Corsica and Marseille — Compensation paid in respect of additional services provided to cover peak periods during the tourist season — Decision classifying that aid as incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of that aid from the recipients — Application for stay of execution — 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 — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Whether the risk materialises dependent on uncertain, future events — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24, 34, 37, 42, 50, 56)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Harm that can be pleaded by a Member State (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 25)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Decision addressed to the Member State and not to the beneficiary — Account taken of national implementing measures — Non-binding measures — No urgency (Arts 278 EU, 279 TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29, 41, 56)

5. Application for interim measures — Community law — Suspension of the operation of a decision ordering the recovery of State aid — Whether there exists any means of obtaining legal redress before the national court against national implementing measures — Power of the EU judicature to take such remedies into account when assessing the substance of the application for interim measures (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 44-47)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — CMC France v Commission

(Case T‑236/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Bitiqi and Others v Commission and Others

(Case T‑410/13)

‛Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — ‘Rule of law’ mission conducted by the European Union in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) — Decisions of the head of the mission not to renew the employment contracts — Manifest lack of jurisdiction’

Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 274 TFEU) (see paras 26-28, 36, 37)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decisions of the head of the mission ‘Rule of law’ conducted by the European Union in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) of 27 May and 2 July 2013 not to renew the applicants’ employment contracts.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Burim Bitiqi, Arlinda Gjebrea, Anna Gorska, Agim Hajdini, Josefa Martínez Estéve, Denis Vasile Miron, James Nicholls, Zornitsa Popova Glodzhani, Andrei Mihai Popovici, Amaia San José Ortiz are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo.

3. The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 2014 — Bitiqi and Others v Commission and Others

(Case T‑410/13)

‛Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — ‘Rule of law’ mission conducted by the European Union in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) — Decisions of the head of the mission not to renew the employment contracts — Manifest lack of jurisdiction’

Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 274 TFEU) (see paras 26-28, 36, 37)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decisions of the head of the mission ‘Rule of law’ conducted by the European Union in Kosovo (Eulex Kosovo) of 27 May and 2 July 2013 not to renew the applicants’ employment contracts.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Burim Bitiqi, Arlinda Gjebrea, Anna Gorska, Agim Hajdini, Josefa Martínez Estéve, Denis Vasile Miron, James Nicholls, Zornitsa Popova Glodzhani, Andrei Mihai Popovici, Amaia San José Ortiz are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Eulex Kosovo.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Cofresco Frischhalteprodukte v Commission

(Case T‑223/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

Evangelou v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑292/13)

‛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’

1. 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 — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (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 33, 34)

2. Actions for damages — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to rule on the legality of a protocol of agreement concluded between a Member State and the European Stability Mechanism — Not included (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(4)) (see paras 42‑47)

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 49, 50)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage resulting from failure of an institution to act — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

5. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to review the legality of measures not emanating from the institutions, organs or bodies of the Union — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 56, 58)

6. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Application for interim measures — Application submitted in the same document as the main action — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 61)

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

1. The action is dismissed.