ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 24 March 2021 –

The Floow v Commission

(Case T‑765/20 R)

(Application for interim relief – Grant agreement entered into as part of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Recovery 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 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 16, 17, 35)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 21)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 22, 36)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Purely pecuniary loss (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 28)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Serious nature of the harm – 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 (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 29, 30)

6. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings – No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 34)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures, first, suspending the operation of Commission Decision C(2020) 8138 final of 17 November 2020 on the recovery of EUR 161 990.80 plus interest due from the applicant and, second, prohibiting the Commission from enforcing the contested decision or recovering money, or extending and extrapolating its findings to the non-audited period of the project or to other projects.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
EU law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Enshrined by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights reaffirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see para. 43)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 November 2021 –

KS and KD v Council and Others

(Case T‑771/20)

(Action for damages – Common foreign and security policy – Eulex Kosovo mission – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

Common foreign and security policy – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Actions for damages – Action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a result of acts or omissions by the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) – Political or strategic issues connected with defining the activities, priorities and resources of an EU mission – Precluded

(Arts 24(1), second para., and 40 TEU; Arts 263, 265, 268 and 275 TFEU; Council Joint Action 2008/124)

(see paras 28-33, 39-42)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of various acts and omissions by the Council, the Commission and the EEAS in the implementation of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92), and, in particular, during the investigations that were carried out, during that mission, into the disappearance and killing of the applicants’ family members in 1999 in Pristina (Kosovo).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed since the Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

2. KS and KD shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.
8

The applicants claim that the Court should: – first, refer the case back to the Grand Chamber of the General Court or to a Chamber sitting with a different number of Judges, pursuant to Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; – second, adopt interim measures on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, namely suspend the Spanish court proceedings concerning them and declare their right to receive financial assistance equivalent to the salary which they received in their previous employment; – third, grant their application under Article 265 TFEU, directed against the Parliament, regarding ‘in particular’ the decision of 9 October 2020, order the suspension of the retaliatory measures taken against them and order the Parliament to pay compensation for the damage they have suffered; – fourth, in the alternative, order the Kingdom of Spain to pay compensation for the damage they have suffered as a result of the infringement of EU law by the Spanish courts, declare that that Member State must prescribe penalties against those persons who have prevented or attempted to prevent their complaints from being dealt with and adopt measures to monitor compliance with that obligation.
Judicial proceedings – Absolute bar to proceeding – Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure – To be considered of the Court’s own motion

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

(see para. 14)
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 October 2021 –

Abenante and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑527/21 R)

(Interim relief – Regulation (EU) 2021/953 – EU Digital COVID Certificate – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – 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 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 11-14)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see para. 17)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Particularly strong prima facie case – No impact on the obligation to examine urgency separately (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 24)

4. 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 (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 30)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2021/953 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2021 on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable COVID-19 vaccination, test and recovery certificates (EU Digital COVID Certificate) to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 8 March 2022 –

UNIS v Commission

(Case T‑431/21) ( 1 )

(Application for annulment – Social security – Bodies entrusted with the management of statutory health insurance and old-age insurance schemes – Caisse nationale d’assurance vieillesse – Economic activity – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation – Letter from the Commission declaring that it does not have the competence to consider the issue raised by the applicant in its complaint – Purely informative letter – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 22-25)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. L’Union nationale des indépendants solidaires (UNIS) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

( 1 ) OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
2.

There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, 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, and by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Regulation establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund – Possible derogation from ineligibility in respect of certain operations and expenditure – Action by an association working for the protection of the marine environment – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations 2021/1060, Art. 23, and 2021/1139, Arts 17 to 19)

(see paras 60-66, 69, 70, 73-75)
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 December 2021 –

FC v EASO

(Case T‑303/21 R)

(Application for interim measures – Main action clearly inadmissible – 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 for suspension of operation of the act adopted by the Chair of the Disciplinary Board of EASO [confidential] by which the applicant’s hearing in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her was fixed for [confidential].

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant – Interest of the applicant affected – Damage to the health and life of his child connected with the loss of the financial benefits that he received for his child – Included

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

(see paras 20, 21, 26-30)
9.12.2000 EN C 355/29 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Conepo Servizi — annul Article 5 of that decision;
s.c.a r.l. against Commission of the European Communi-
ties — in the alternative, annul Article 5 of the decision in so far
as it refers to the tax concessions under Article 2 of the
Ministerial Decree of 5 August 1994 in Article 1 of the(Case T-268/00)operative part of the decision;
(2000/C 355/64)— order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Language of the case: Italian)Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those putties was brought before the Court of First Instance of theforward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria dellaEuropean Communities on 16 September 2000 by ConepoCarità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess SocialeServizi s.c.a r.l., represented by Alfredo Biagini, of the Romeand Others v Commission (1).Bar, and Silvia Scarpa and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.
(1) Not yet published. The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Italgas against
Commission of the European Communities The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).(Case T-270/00)
(1) Not yet published. (2000/C 355/66)
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 2000 by Italgas,Action brought on 17 September 2000 by Baglioni Hotelsrepresented by Massimo Merola and Claudio Tesauro, of theagainst Commission of the European CommunitiesRome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo, of the Brussels Bar.
(Case T-269/00, T-271/00, T-272/00 and T-273/00)The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2000/C 355/65) — annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 2000 by BaglioniThe pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon inHotels, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the Venice Bar,Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità vMassimo Merola, of the Rome Bar, and Maurizio Pappalardo,Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).of the Brussels Bar.
(1) Not yet published. The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision
No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/12

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-161/04)

(2004/C 168/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Gregorio Valero Jordana, residing in Brussels, represented by Massimo Merola, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 10 February 2004 by which the European Commission refused the applicant access to the reserve list for general competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings contests the defendant's decision denying him access to the reserve list for general competition A7/A6 COM/A/637 and the individual decisions appointing officials in Grade A 6 from 5 October 1995.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, misapplication of the exception under Article 4(1)(b) 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 (1). That exception concerns privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data. The applicant states, in that connection, that it cannot be considered that the disclosure of the documents requested could infringe the privacy of the persons whose names appear in them, since belonging to the civil service is not a matter falling within the scope of privacy.

Moreover, to the extent that individual decisions regarding the appointment of European civil servants are in the public domain, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (2). The applicant also alleges failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons and breach of the principle of sound administration.

(1) OJL 145, 31/05/2000, p. 43.

(2) OJL 8, 12/01/2001, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 281/41

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-267/06)

(2006/C 281/73)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Decision C (2006) 3331 of 27 July 2006, notified on 28 July 2006, in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision C (2006) 3331 of 27 July 2006 in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

In support of its claim, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of:

— Paragraph 4(iv) of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L 158 of 8.7.1995, p. 6);

— Article 4(3), Article 17(2), Article 23, Article 24 and Article 30(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 1);

— Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 659/97 of 16 April 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 (OJ 1997 L 100 of 17.4.1997, p. 22);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/18

Action brought on 6 April 2007 — BVGD v Commission

(Case T-104/07)

(2007/C 129/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Belgische Vereniging van handelaars in- en uitvoerders geslepen diamant (Antwerpen, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision dated 26 January 2007 by which the European Commission rejected the complaint lodged by BVGD for the reason that there are insufficient grounds for acting on it (Case COMP/39.221/B-2-BVGD/De Beers);

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission's decision of 26 January 2007 in competition Case COMP/39.221/B-2 — BVGD/De Beers, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint regarding violations of Articles 81 and 82 EC in connection with the Supplier of Choice system applied by the De Beers Group for the distribution of rough diamonds, with the reasoning that there is not sufficient Community interest to act further on the applicant's complaint.

The applicant alleges that De Beers — a producer of rough diamonds who, according to the applicant, was mainly involved upstream with the sale of rough diamonds — is trying through its Supplier of Choice system to extend its control of the market to cover the entire diamond pipeline from mine to consumer, i.e. also the downstream markets.

In support of its application, the applicant firstly claims a violation of its procedural rights as complainant. The applicant alleges i) that the Commission prevented it from exercising its right to have access under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) to the documents on which the Commission based its provisional assessment, ii) that the Commission put undue pressure on the applicant by its management of the time-limits in the case, iii) that the Commission created, in its correspondence with the applicant, confusion as to the stage of the procedure, and iv) that the Commission did not associate the applicant closely with the procedure.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission violated the notion of Community interest and committed manifest errors of appraisal, erred in law and violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/49

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission

(Case T-45/07)

(2007/C 82/103)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as far as Unipetrol is concerned;

— otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:

— committed an error of appreciation by rejecting the evidence that the applicant's holding of all the shares of the company Kaučuk was of a purely financial nature or, alternatively, committed a manifest error of appreciation by rejecting evidence which demonstrated that Kaučuk acted on the market as an autonomous entity, without any intervention by the applicant in Kaučuk's sales and marketing policy concerning emulsion styrene butadiene rubber; and

— erred in law by imputing the same conduct twice to different entities, i.e. to Kaučuk and to Kaučuk's shareholder, the applicant.

The rest of the pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-44/07, Kaučuk v Commission.