ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 12)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission requesting additional information from the national authorities concerning an application for remission of customs duties — Letter informing the applicant of the extension of the period for processing — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 17, 36-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 16 September 2013, requesting supplementary information from the Belgian Administration of Customs and Excise, and the Commission’s letter of the same day informing the applicant of that request and the extension of the treatment period pursuant to Article 907 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and, second; application for declaration that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 has taken effect to the benefit of the applicant as a result of the judgment of 19 March 2013, Van Parys Firma v Commission (T‑324/10).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Firma Leon Van Parys is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — SCA Tissue France v Commission

(Case T‑237/13)

‛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.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Community law

—

Action against the author of the contested measure

—

Exceptions

—

Measures adopted under delegated powers attributable to the delegating institution

—

Conditions (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, primarily, of the decision of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (INEA) of 23 October 2013 rejecting the observations formulated by the Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) concerning certain costs incurred on the occasion of the realisation of a feasibility study concerning the intermodal character of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport (Italy) following financial aid granted by the European Union and claiming, in consequence, the sum of EUR 158 517.54 and, in the alternative, of all the measures on which the said decision is based, namely the letters of INEA of 18 March, 2 August and 8 October 2013.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.

2. The Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO) is ordered to pay costs.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

Fialtor v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑294/13)

‛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.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

16 September 2014

BS

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Rules on insurance against the risks of accident and of occupational disease — Principle of collegiality — Legal nature of the dispute — Physical or mental disability rating — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in BS v Commission (F‑90/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:188), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. BS is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

Summary

Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Invalidity — Concept — Lesions of sufficient gravity — Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 73) Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Invalidity — Physical and mental disability rating scale — Application to burns and scarring (Staff Regulations, Art. 73; Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease, Annex A, point X)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 February 2016 —

Ezz and Others v Council

(Case T‑279/13)

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Egypt — Measures taken against persons responsible for misappropriation of State funds and against associated persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of the applicants on the list of persons targeted — Legal basis — Failure to fulfil the criteria for listing — Error of law — Error of fact — Right to property — Damage to reputation — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Amendment of the claims and pleas in law — Lis pendens — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see paras 22, 28, 30)

2. Judicial proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see para. 23)

3. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Concept — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 32)

4. Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Dismissal of an action on the substance without ruling on admissibility — Discretion of the Courts of the Union (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 38)

5. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Reference to the whole of the annexes — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 74)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63), as amended by Council Decision 2013/144/CFSP of 21 March 2013 (OJ 2013 L 82, p. 54), and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011‘renewed by decision of the Council notified to the applicants by letter dated 22 March 2013’ concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4), in so far as those acts concern the applicants.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of General Court of 20 August 2014 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T‑217/14 R)

‛Interim proceedings — State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of 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 — 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 17, 18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Situation likely seriously to compromise the achievement by a public-law territorial entity below State level of its public service tasks (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-30)

3. 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 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31, 32, 34-38)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Commission decision ordering 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 means of redress into consideration when assessing whether the application for interim measures is well founded — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 40, 41, 45-48)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Public interest defended by the Commission and interest of the aid beneficiary — No exceptional circumstances — Primacy of the public interest (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 50-52, 58)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend operation of Commission Decision C(2014) 759 final of 11 February 2014 relating to measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N) — Poland — Conversion of the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission

(Case T‑288/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Energiewerke Nord v Commission

(Case T‑288/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2015 — Aalberts Industries v European Union

(Case T‑725/14)

‛Actions for damages — Reasonable time — Representation of the Union — Partial inadmissibility’

European Union — Representation before the EU judicature — Compensation action against the EU for damage allegedly suffered through unreasonable duration of the procedure before the General Court — Representation of the Union by the Court of Justice (Arts 13 TEU and 19 TEU; Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 14, 15, 17, 19-21)

Re:

ACTION for damages in respect of the applicant’s alleged loss by reason of allegedly unreasonable duration of the procedure before the General Court in Case T‑385/06, Aalberts Industries and Others v Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the European Union represented by the European Commission.

2. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the Court of Justice of the European Union is dismissed.

3. Aalberts Industries NV is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 May 2015 —

Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑559/14)

‛Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope except for legislative measures — Regulation on measures concerning compliance by users in the Union with the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation — Regulation adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure — Not included (Arts 114 TFEU, 192(1) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014) (see paras 21-25)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of an action where only one of those conditions absent (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation imposing information obligations on users of genetic resources — Action by acquirers of protected varieties, claiming exemption from any information obligation by virtue of another regulation — No restricted category of economic operators — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 511/2014, Art. 4(3)(b); Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 15) (see paras 29-34, 37, 38)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the application of the European Seed Association (ESA) for leave to intervene.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

21 September 2015

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

‛Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Annual appraisal — Internal rules — Appeals procedure — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal

:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 November 2014 in De Nicola v EIB (F‑59/09 RENV, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:248), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Held

:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Carlo De Nicola is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in these proceedings.

Summary

Appeal — Grounds of appeal — Ground of appeal seeking rectification of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court

(Art. 270 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 122(1))

Article 122(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, concerning the rectification of clerical mistakes, errors in calculation and obvious inaccuracies, is not applicable to the procedure before the General Court, which is solely governed by the General Court’s own Rules of Procedure. An appellant cannot therefore remedy his failure to act under that article by requesting the General Court to correct or rectify alleged clerical mistakes or obvious inaccuracies in contested decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal.

(see para. 30)

See:

Order of 13 January 2014 in Lebedef v Commission, T‑116/13 P and T‑117/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:21, paras 44 and 45
Case T‑347/14 INTP

Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych,

as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych

v

Council of the European Union

(Procedure — Interpretation of an order)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 July 2017

Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Both the operative part and the grounds of the judgment to be taken into account

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43)

An application for interpretation of a judgment or an order must be reviewed with regard not only to the operative part of the judicial decision in question, but also to the grounds constituting its essential basis, in so far as they are necessary to determine the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part.

(see para. 8)