ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 March 2020 –

Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament

(Case T‑388/19 R-RENV)

(Application for interim measures — European Parliament — Recognition of the applicants as Members of the European Parliament — No longer any legal interest in pursuing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Application for suspension of the decisions preventing the applicants from becoming Members of the European Parliament and for the adoption of measures enabling them to become Members of the European Parliament — Judgment of the Court recognising the entitlements, including immunity as regards travel, of persons elected as Members of the European Parliament as soon as the election results are announced — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Act concerning the elections of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, Art. 6; Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, Art. 9, second and third para.)

(see paras 8-16)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of several decisions of the European Parliament allegedly preventing the applicants from taking their seats as elected Members of the European Parliament and, second, an order requiring the European Parliament to take all necessary measures, including the recognition of the privileges and immunities of the applicants, to enable them to take their seats in the Parliament with effect from 2 July 2019.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 April 2020 –

Anglo Austrian AAB and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T‑797/19 RII)

(Interim measures – Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 – Prudential supervision of credit institutions – Decision to withdraw authorisation as a credit institution – Further application – Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure)

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Meaning (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160) (see paras 14-16)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage resulting from the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation – Decisive cause of the damage not arising from the decision of the ECB – Suspension of operation of that decision not justified (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 32-33)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of 14 November 2019, ref: ECB-SSM-2019-AT‑8, WHD-2019-0009, by which the European Central Bank withdrew the authorisation of Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG as a credit institution from the date of notification of the decision.

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed.
47

It must be added that the application for revision cannot be treated in the same way as a request for an opinion or a purely theoretical question, within the meaning of the judgment of 19 June 2009, Socratec v Commission (T‑269/03, not published, EU:T:2009:211, paragraph 38), which the applicant for revision would address to the Court. The applicant for revision is specifically asking the Court to call into question the force of res judicata of the order of 10 July 2020, WONDERLAND (T‑616/19, not published, EU:T:2020:334) by a revising decision which takes into account a potentially decisive fact which had not been brought to its attention. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that that order contains factual and legal considerations that are unfavourable to the applicant for revision and an order for costs against it and that it cannot be excluded that those considerations and that order for costs would not have been included in a decision of the Court had the fact of the withdrawal of the opposition been brought to its attention in good time.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 11 September 2020 –

Datax v REA

(Case T‑381/20 R)

(Interim measures – Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Reimbursement of sums paid – Application for interim measures – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – 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 judicature hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 17-20)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency – Pre-information letter from an executive agency, prior to any debit note or reminder letter, not forming an enforceable title (Art. 299(1) and (2) TFEU) (see paras 23, 24, 28-30, 32-35)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation capable of putting the existence of the applicant company at risk – Obligation to provide concrete and precise information, supported by detailed documentary evidence – Need to provide a true overall picture of the financial situation – Reference to the payment capable of seriously limiting the activities of a private company, especially during the COVID 19 epidemic, which cannot compensate for the lack of concrete information regarding its financial situation – Lack of urgency (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 36-43)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of REA measure Ares(2019) 7018535 of 13 November 2019 concerning project 261659 (HELP) and project 286822 (GreenNets), concerning rejection and recovery of eligible costs and debit notes issued on the basis of that measure.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Application for interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 22-25)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 June 2021 –

TrekStor v EUIPO – Zagg (Protective cover for computer hardware)

(Case T‑564/20)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a protective cover for computer hardware – Ground for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Request that witnesses be heard – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Law of the Member State serving to define the procedures for acquiring and proving copyright (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28 (1)(b)(iii)) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a protective cover for computer hardware (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 (Case R 296/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor and Zagg.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter refusing a request to review the approval of the active substance glyphosate – Applicants not entitled to request the opening of the review procedure – Refusal not producing binding legal effects – Application inadmissible

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1107/2009, Recital 12 and Arts 21 and 44(1))

(see paras 24-26, 30, 34, 46, 48)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 September 2021 –

MKB Multifunds v Commission

(Case T‑277/20)

(Action for annulment – State aid – Private equity fund – Complaint – Measures allegedly constituting State aid related to Dutch Venture Initiative – Decision adopted at the end of the preliminary procedure for reviewing aid – Decision finding that there is no State aid – Status as an interested party – Safeguarding of procedural rights – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the Commission finding that there is no State aid without initiating the formal investigation procedure – Action by interested parties within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 108(2) and (3) and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 1(h)) (see paras 23-25)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Decision of the Commission finding that there is no State aid without initiating the formal investigation procedure – Action challenging the justification of that decision – Action by an undertaking not demonstrating that its market position was substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 26, 53, 54)

3. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Administrative procedure – Person concerned for the purposes of Article 108(2) TFEU – Concept – Undertaking not in direct competition with the aid recipient – Necessity for that undertaking to demonstrate the specific effect of aid on its situation (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 1(h)) (see paras 29-51)

4. Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Claim seeking that the Commission be ordered to open the formal State aid investigation procedure – Lack of jurisdiction (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 57)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 1109 final of 27 February 2020 concerning State aid SA.55704 (2019/FC) – the Netherlands, relating to alleged State aid granted to Dutch Venture Initiative.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. MKB Multifunds BV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2021 –

CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑633/20)

(Action for annulment – Public health – Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 – Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs – Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) – Concept of legislative act – Concept of regulatory act – No individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures – Concept – Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 20)

3. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative acts and regulatory acts – Distinguishing criteria – Procedure for the adoption of the act (Art. 289(3) TFEU) (see paras 21, 22)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation 2020/1043 – Conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use containing GMOs – Treatment or prevention of the coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) – Action by an association whose object is the protection of human health, medical safety and the environment – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 2020/1043, Art. 3; European Parliament and Council Directives 2001/18, Arts 6 to 11 and 13 to 24, and 2009/41, Arts 4 to 13) (see paras 35-47)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with and supply of medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (OJ 2020 L 231, p. 12).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by the European Commission and the non-profit-making association ‘Groupe de Réflexion et d’Action Pour une Politique Ecologique’.

3. The Coordination nationale médicale santé – environnement (CNMSE) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 July 2022 –

JP v Commission

(Case T‑638/20) ( 1 )

(Action for annulment and for damages – Civil service – Open competition – Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 for the recruitment of administrators in the field of taxation (AD 7) – Non-inclusion on the reserve list – Lis pendens – Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings – Objection of lis pendens – Same parties, subject matter and submissions in two actions – Inadmissibility of the second action

(see paras 20-27)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. JP shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 2021 –

Junqueras i Vies v Parliament

(Case T‑100/20)

(Action for annulment – Law governing the institutions – Member of the Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Request for privileges and immunities to be defended – Decision of the President of the Parliament not to grant that request – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Need for a vested and present interest – Assessment at the time when the action was brought – Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant – Burden of proof

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 34-36)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the President of the Parliament of 10 December 2019 not to grant the request, made on behalf of the applicant, for his immunities, as referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, to be defended.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of Spain.

3. Mr Oriol Junqueras i Vies shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2020 – Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T‑550/20)

(Action for annulment – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States to appoint an Advocate General to the Court of Justice – Act not open to challenge – Manifest inadmissibility)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Decision (EU) 2020/1251 of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 2 September 2020 appointing three Judges and an Advocate General to the Court of Justice (OJ 2020 L 292, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the appointment of Mr Athanasios Rantos to the post of Advocate General at the Court of Justice.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
47

Furthermore, it is true that the particular link between Brandstock Legal and Ms Parassina, on the one hand, and the applicant, on the other, which gave rise to the specific interest of Brandstock Legal and Ms Parassina in the dispute was broken, after the action was brought, because the applicant chose to pursue her career as a trade mark attorney at the German head office of an international company, and it is also true that the applicant is now assisted by a second lawyer who does not work for the firm Brandstock Legal. However, it must be noted, first, that the question as to whether an action is admissible must be assessed by reference to the situation prevailing when the application was lodged (see order of 16 January 2020, Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO – Cabrejos (Sativa), T‑128/19, not published, EU:T:2020:3, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited) and, secondly, that the requirement of signature by a lawyer authorised to practise before a court or tribunal of a Member State or another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement is an essential procedural condition which, under Article 78(6) of the Rules of Procedure, is not one of the requirements which can be rectified, after expiry of the time limit for bringing an action (see, by analogy, orders of 5 September 2013, ClientEarth v Council, C‑573/11 P, not published, EU:C:2013:564, paragraphs 22 and 23, and of 17 July 2014, Brown Brothers Harriman v OHIM, C‑101/14 P, not published, EU:C:2014:2115, paragraph 21).
2.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by Roberta Riccio and Alessandra Rizzotto, by Gheorghe Piperea, by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VV, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TO, TP and TQ, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VW, and by BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH and Pfizer Inc.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an implied decision on the part of the Commission to refuse access to documents – Decision withdrawn as a result of the Commission adopting a subsequent express decision – No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(2) and (7))

(see paras 23-27)
Application for interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 16-19)
4.

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Failure by the European Commission to include carcinogenicity and genotoxicity tests at the preclinical phase of the procedure for granting the conditional marketing authorisation for messenger ribonucleic acid technology vaccines – Action brought by individuals who allege that their fundamental rights have been infringed – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 40-49)
22

However, an action for annulment against the initiation of a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU might make it necessary for the EU judicature to arrive at a decision on questions on which the Commission has not yet had an opportunity to state its position and would as a result anticipate the arguments on the substance of the case, confusing different procedural stages both administrative and judicial. It would thus be incompatible with the system of the division of powers between the Commission and the EU judicature and of the remedies laid down by the Treaty, as well as the requirements of the sound administration of justice and the proper course of the administrative procedure to be followed in the Commission (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 November 1981, IBM v Commission, 60/81, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 20).
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 December 2021 –

Castellanos Triviño and Others v Commission

(Case T‑768/21 R)

(Interim relief – Dismissal of the main action – No need to adjudicate)

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Action dismissed in the main proceedings – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU)

(see paras 3, 4)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, inter alia, an order that, in the event of termination of their temporary employment relationship, the applicants have the right to continue to receive the remuneration relating to their posts from the contracting public authority.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
2.

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Assessment in the light of the size and turnover of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 13, 21-26, 34-36, 39, 42, 43)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 11, 13)

2. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-15, 17-21)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension in third-party proceedings challenging the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.