ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Administrative procedure applying the competition rules — Refusal by the hearing officer of access to information requested under Article 8(1) of Decision 2001/462 — Intermediate measure — Excluded — Rights of the defence — Any infringement pleadable in support of an action against the Commission ' s final decision — (Art. 230 EC; Commission Decision 2001/462, Art. 8(1))

Summary

The acts or decisions against which proceedings for annulment may be brought under Article 230 EC are measures the legal effects of which are binding on, and capable of affecting the interests of, the applicant by having a significant effect on his legal position. In the case of acts or decisions drawn up in a procedure involving several stages, only measures definitively laying down the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure may in principle be contested, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision.

Even if the hearing officer ' s refusal of a request under Article 8(1) of Decision 2001/462 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings for access to information on the circumstances which led to the closure of administrative proceedings brought against persons other than the applicant were to be capable of constituting an infringement of that applicant ' s defence rights, such an infringement, which renders the entire administrative proceedings unlawful, does not affect the applicant ' s legal situation until a final decision finding that it infringed Article 81 EC has been adopted. Therefore, that refusal, which in itself produces only limited effects characteristic of a preparatory measure forming part of an administrative procedure initiated by the Commission, cannot be the subject-matter of an action before that procedure has been completed.

The opportunity for the applicant to complain of an alleged infringement of defence rights is in an action against the Commission ' s final decision finding an infringement.

see paras 53, 58, 63
Case T-219/01





Commerzbank AG

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Actions for annulment – Request for access to documents – Decision of the hearing officer – Admissibility)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 9 July 2003

Summary of the Order
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

27 September 2002

Case T-236/02 R

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Procedure for interim relief — Officials — Reassignment decision — Urgency — None’

Full text in Italian II - 941

Application for:

interim relief consisting in first, suspension of operation of the decision reassigning the Grade A 7/A 6 post and its holder, Luigi Marcuccio, from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels and, second, his immediate reinstatement in the job previously held with the aforementioned delegation.

Held:

The application for interim measures is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

Applications f or interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Prima facie case — Cumulative nature (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) Applications for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable harm — Application for suspension of operation of a non-disciplinary decision reassigning to the seat of the Commission an official previously assigned to a delegation to a nonmember country — Dismissal (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))
The measures laid down by Regulation No 560/2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products, which opens a tariff quota in relation to imports into the Community of each of the groups of products in question for a period of six months from the date on which the Regulation enters into force, and which subjects imports of those products which are in excess of the relevant tariff quota or without a request for the benefit of the quota, to an additional duty, are measures of general application within the meaning of Article 249 EC. They apply to objectively determined situations and produce legal effects vis-à-vis classes of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner, namely the importers of the groups of products in question, which are specified in Annex 3 to the regulation.

The general scope and hence the legislative nature of that regulation are not called into question by the fact that it is possible to determine the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment with a greater or lesser degree of precision as long as it is established that it is applied by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in relation to the objective of the latter.

Irrespective of the more or less limited number of importers of the groups of steel products specified in Annex 3 to the contested regulation at the date of its adoption, it provides for additional duty on the basis of an objective situation, namely if the importers of one or more of the groups of products in question exceed the corresponding tariff quota specified in Annex 2 to the regulation or if no request is made for the benefit of the quota, as laid down in Article 1(3) of the regulation. In addition, the number of undertakings affected by the contested regulation may always vary.

(see paras 35-39)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector — Provisions regulating unsolicited electronic communications — Internet user — Action inadmissible — (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Directive 2002/58 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 13(1) to (3))

Summary

Persons other than those to whom a measure is addressed may claim to be individually concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, only if that measure affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed.

An internet user who uses the net to send unsolicited applications to potential employers when he is seeking employment and also to carry out direct mailing over the internet to make himself known and to spread his ideas is not individually concerned by Article 13(1) to (3) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector, which regulate unsolicited electronic communications.

The rules in that directive, particularly in Article 13(1) to (3), are set out in general terms, apply to objectively determined situations and produce legal effects in relation to categories of persons considered generally and objectively, namely providers of electronic communications services and any users of or subscribers to those services. Directive 2002/58 therefore concerns such a user only in his objective capacity as an internet user, in the same way as all other business users of the internet.

see paras 26, 28-29, 32
The existence of an act adversely affecting a person within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations is a mandatory condition for the admissibility of any action brought by officials against the institution by which they are employed. Only measures which produce binding legal effects capable of directly and immediately affecting the applicant's interests by significantly altering his legal situation constitute acts or decisions against which actions for annulment may be brought. As regards staff cases, acts preparatory to a decision do not adversely affect the applicant and therefore can only be contested incidentally in an appeal against measures capable of being annulled. Although some purely preparatory measures may adversely affect an official inasmuch as they may influence the content of a subsequent challengeable act, those measures cannot be the subject of a separate action and must be challenged in support of an action brought against that act.

Decisions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to open or to reopen an administrative inquiry, its investigations into the administration's conduct of an internal inquiry concerning an official, and OLAF's forwarding to the administration of the report concluding the inquiry and containing the conclusions and recommendations of OLAF's director merely constitute measures preparing the way for a decision of the appointing authority. The same is true of, on the one hand, OLAF's refusal to notify the official concerned of certain acts relating to an internal inquiry allegedly conducted against him and to allow him to defend himself as part of that inquiry, and, on the other hand, the decision by the institution itself to institute and to conduct an internal inquiry.

(see paras 46-47, 50, 53. 55)

See: 32/68 Grasselli v Commission [1969] ECR 505. paras 4 to 7; 17/78 Deshormes v Commission [1979] ECR 189, para. 10; 346/87 Bossi v Commission [1989] ECR 303, para. 23: T-20/92 Moat v Commission [1993] ECR II-799. para. 39; T-391/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECRSC I-A-269 and II-787. para. 34; T-293/94 Vela Palacios v ESC [1996] ECRSC I-A-305 and II-893. para. 22
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Meaning

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Letter of the Commission relating to the rectification of the final balances of operational programmes for which Community financial assistance was granted

–

Excluded (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24(1)) (see paras 40-41, 43

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 March 2000 relating to various financial measures of the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to a number of operational programmes under the Community scheme of support for the achievement of Objectives 1, 3 and 4 in Italy (Centre-North and Mezzogiorno)

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.
Case T-372/02





Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Development cooperation – European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) – Framework partnership agreement for the co-financing of operations carried out by NGOs – Rejection of an application – Action for annulment – Inadmissible)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), 15 October 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Actions for annulment – Action challenging a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limit – Inadmissible – Concept of confirmatory decision

(Art. 230 EC)

2.. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claims seeking the issue of directions to an institution – Inadmissible

(Arts 230 EC and 233 EC)

3.. Procedure – Costs – Taxation – Recoverable costs – Concept – Matters to be taken into consideration – Costs relating to procedures before the European Ombudsman – Not included

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 91(b))

1.

2.

3.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2006 – Cámara de Comercio e Industria de Zaragoza v Commission

(Case T-225/02)

European Social Fund – Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 – Withdrawal of financial aid – Action for annulment – Directly concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 41, 48, 50)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000) 2621 of 29 December 2000 relating to the withdrawal of aid which was allocated by the European Social Fund (ESF) by application of Decision C (91) 2852 of 19 December 1991 adopting the Community initiative ‘Euroform’ for Spain (P.O. 913051ES8) and ESF funds which the Spanish authorities allocated to the Cámara de Comercio e Industria (Chamber of Commerce), Zaragoza, for the ‘Tricoin’ project (ref.: EUR-82), for the implementation of which the company Copy Aragón de Zaragoza was responsible.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability

–

Conditions

–

Actual and certain damage (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/2, Art. 1(1)(b) and (4) (see paras 19, 27-29, 35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants owing to Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicants and the Parliament and the Council to bear their own costs;

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action against a decision of the Commission refusing access to a document originating from a Member State – Document annexed to the application but purportedly not passed to the applicant by his lawyer – Action devoid of purpose having regard to the concept of representation in court proceedings – Irrelevance of national rules of professional ethics

(Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001)

Summary

An action brought by an applicant for annulment of a decision of the Commission refusing that applicant access to a document originating from a Member State is devoid of purpose where the document concerned is one of the annexes to the application.

The Court of First Instance cannot take cognisance of statements made by the applicant’s lawyer to the effect that, pursuant to his ethical obligations, that lawyer has produced – in his personal capacity and unbeknownst to the applicant – the document to which access is requested on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

Representation in court proceedings, which is obligatory in the case of the Court of First Instance, consists in one person acting in such proceedings in the name and on behalf of another person, with the legal effects of the proceedings being exclusively to the benefit of the latter, or exclusively to be borne by the latter. The representative, in this case the lawyer, is no more than an intermediary for the person represented, who alone – so far as the Court is concerned – is party to the proceedings.

Moreover, it is not for the Court to consider whether that lawyer has complied with the national rules of professional ethics by which he is bound.

(see paras 26, 28-32, 34)
Case T-46/03 R





Leali SpA

v

Commission of the European Communities





«(Interim proceedings – Competition – Payment of a fine – Bank guarantee – Urgency – None)»

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance, 20 October 2003

Summary of the Order

1.. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative conditions – Consequences

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2.. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate payment of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances

(Art. 242 EC)

1.

2.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Arts 88(2) and (3) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-42

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 4370 final of 13 November 2002 not to raise objections to the Danish fiscal measures applicable to seafarers on board vessels registered in the Danish international register.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

3. All the parties are ordered to bear their own costs relating to the interventions.
Case T-61/03

Irwin Industrial Tool Co.

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Word mark QUICK-GRIP – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Refusal to register – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 27 May 2004

Summary of the Order

1. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product – Sign capable of bearing multiple meanings – Refusal to register where descriptiveness of at least one of the potential meanings exists

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c))

2. Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Trade marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics of a product – Word mark QUICK-GRIP

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 7(1(c))

1. A sign must be refused registration under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark if at least one of its possible meanings designates a characteristic of the goods and services concerned (by the application for registration).

(see para. 32)

2. The word sign QUICK-GRIP, in respect of which registration was sought for goods falling within Class 8 of the Nice Agreement concerning hand tools and including clamps and the parts and fittings for such goods, is ineligible for registration as a Community trade mark. The link between that sign and the products referred to is sufficiently close for the sign to fall within the scope of the prohibition laid down by Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the sign enables the relevant public, which is the average English-speaking consumer in the Community, to ascertain immediately and without further reflection that the goods concerned grip easily and speedily, and therefore the choice of the words ‘quick’ and ‘grip’ by no means requires a leap of imagination or arbitrary decision on the part of the consumer.

(see paras 27, 31, 33-34)
Case T-120/03





Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)





«(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of opposition – No need to adjudicate)»

Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), 9 February 2004

Summary of the Order

1.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Action brought against the rejection of an application for a trade mark following an opposition procedure – Withdrawal of the opposition – Action devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 113; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63)

2.. Community trade mark – Observations from third parties and opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Permissible at any time

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 42 to 44)

3.. Community trade mark – Appeal procedure – Appeals before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Whether it may issue directions to OHIM – Excluded

(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(6))

1.

2.

3.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2008 – Maison de l’Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-100/03)

Action for annulment – Setting up of an Info-Point Europe – Termination of an agreement entered into by the Commission and the applicant – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute (Arts 225 EC, 230 EC, 238 EC and 249 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 21-24)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2003 terminating the agreement between the Commission and the applicant on the setting up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE) in Avignon.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2005 − Deutsche Post and Securicor Omega Express v Commission

(Case T-343/03)

State aid – Article 88(3) EC – Action for annulment – Admissibility – Complaint – Rejection – Lack of purpose

Actions for annulment – Purpose – Annulment of the rejection of a complaint by the applicant allegedly made by a Commission decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market – Contested decision relating to measures different from those covered by the complaint – Action devoid of purpose – Inadmissible (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 35, 45)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C (2003) 1652 final of 27 May 2003 declaring the measures which the United Kingdom authorities propose to adopt for Post Office Ltd to be compatible with the common market (State aid N 784/2002).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

Orders each party to bear its own costs.