ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 September 2021 –

NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T‑648/20)

(Action for annulment – Civil service – Decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10 – Time limit for lodging a complaint – Delay – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – Time-barred – Reopening – Condition – New and material fact – Concept (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 24, 36, 38, 57-59, 64, 65)

2. Actions brought by officials – Time limits – Complaint lodged out of time – Burden of proof (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(3)) (see para. 25)

3. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Complaint against the decision to appoint another official to a higher grade – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication of the appointing decision (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 29, 30, 35)

4. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Complaint against the decision to appoint another official to a higher grade – No obligation to communicate that decision to a third-party official (Art. 296 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., and 90(2)) (see paras 47-49)

5. Action for annulment – Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision – Inadmissibility – Concept of confirmatory decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 71)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision not to appoint the applicant to grade AST 10; second, and so far as necessary, of the decision to appoint A to that grade; and, third, purely in the alternative, of all the decisions to appoint other officials to that grade.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2021 –

Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission

(Case T‑510/20)

(State aid – Tax treatment of operators of public casinos in Germany – Complaint – Preliminary examination stage – Commission decision finding that there is no State aid – Conditions for initiating a formal investigation procedure – Serious difficulties – Concept of ‘State aid’ – Levy on the profits – Advantage – Selectivity – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. State aid – Concept – Grant of an advantage to the beneficiaries – Distinction between the requirement for selectivity and the concomitant detection of an economic advantage – Tax measure reserving the partial deductibility of transfer of profits for operators of public casinos – Assessment of the advantages and burdens of that measure – Need to establish the advantage likely to be derived from the measure at the time of its adoption – No advantage (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see paras 49-51, 55-58, 62, 67)

2. State aid – Commission decision – Assessment of the legality by reference to the information available at the time of adoption of the decision (Art. 107(1) TFEU) (see para. 65)

3. State aid – Examination by the Commission – Preliminary review and main review – Commission’s duty to initiate the main review procedure in the event of serious difficulties – Circumstances enabling the existence of such difficulties to be established – Burden of proof (Arts 107(1) and 108(2) and (3) TFEU) (see para. 68)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 8819 final of 9 December 2019 on State aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) – Tax treatment of public casinos operators in Germany and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) – Alleged guarantee for public casinos operators in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie), inasmuch as it rejects the complaint lodged by the applicants against the fact that the sums paid by operators of public casinos to the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) as a levy on the profits were deductible from the tax bases for the trade tax and the income or corporation tax.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Fachverband Spielhallen eV and LM shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.
Judicial proceedings – Absolute bar to proceeding – To be considered of the Court’s own motion – Decision taken by way of reasoned order

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 129)

(see paras 25, 26)
48

Furthermore, the applicant submits that an interpretation of Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure as referring only to measures published in the Official Journal constitutes unjustified discrimination with regard to measures published on the internet. According to the applicant, that discrimination is all the more serious given that there are situations in which the decision to identify a substance as being of very high concern is published in the Official Journal, in particular when such a decision is taken by the Commission in the absence of unanimous agreement in the MSC on the identification of substances as being of very high concern. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the wording of Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is still similar to the wording of Article 102 of the Rules of Procedure of 2 May 1991 and that its interpretation could therefore be similar to the interpretation adopted in the judgment of 26 September 2013, PPG and SNF v ECHA (C‑625/11 P, EU:C:2013:594). Consequently, according to the applicant, the interpretation of Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure advocated by ECHA leads to an unjustified difference in treatment as between actions brought before the Court of Justice and those brought before the General Court.
7

The contested regulation provides inter alia: ‘Article 1 1. A provisional anti-dumping duty is imposed on imports of [the product concerned]. 2. The rates of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the product described in paragraph 1 and produced by the companies listed below, shall be as follows: Company Provisional anti-dumping duty TARIC additional code Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co., Ltd. 30.4% C562 Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co., Ltd. 30.4% C563 Press Metal International Ltd. 38.2% C564 Press Metal International Technology Ltd. 38.2% C565 Other cooperating companies listed in Annex 34.9% All other companies 48.0% C999 3. The application of the individual duty rates specified for the companies mentioned in paragraph 2 shall be conditional upon presentation to the Member States’ customs authorities of a valid commercial invoice, on which shall appear a declaration dated and signed by an official of the entity issuing such invoice, identified by his/her name and function, drafted as follows: “I, the undersigned, certify that the (volume) of (product concerned) sold for export to the European Union covered by this invoice was manufactured by (company name and address) (TARIC additional code) in [country concerned]. I declare that the information provided in this invoice is complete and correct.” If no such invoice is presented, the duty applicable to all other companies shall apply. 4. The release for free circulation in the Union of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject to the provision of a security deposit equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty. … Article 2 1. Interested parties shall submit their written comments on this regulation to the Commission within 15 calendar days of the date of entry into force of this Regulation. 2. Interested parties wishing to request a hearing with the Commission shall do so within 5 calendar days of the date of entry into force of this Regulation. 3. Interested parties wishing to request a hearing with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings shall do so within 5 calendar days of the date of entry into force of this Regulation. The Hearing Officer shall examine requests submitted outside this time limit and may decide whether to accept to such requests if appropriate. Article 3 1. Customs authorities are hereby directed to discontinue the registration of imports established in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1215 making imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China subject to registration. 2. Data collected regarding products which were imported into the EU for consumption not more than 90 days prior to the date of the entry into force of this regulation shall be kept until the entry into force of possible definitive measures, or the termination of this proceeding.’
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 September 2021 –

Silex v Commission and Eismea

(Case T‑654/20)

(Action for annulment – ‘Horizon 2020’ Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) – Debit note issued by EASME – Identification of the defendant – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Admissibility criteria – Action against the author of the contested measure – Exceptions – Measures adopted under delegated powers imputable to the delegating institution – Measures signed by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) – Competence of EASME to adopt those measures – Action directed against the Commission – Inadmissibility

(Commission Decision 2013/771, Art. 3(3)(b); general conditions of the grant agreement, Art. 44.1.2)

(see paras 26-33)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of debit note No 3242009492 of 18 August 2020 issued by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME), seeking payment from the applicant of the sum of EUR 55 454.44, and of letter Ares(2020) 4309529 sending that debit note, by which EASME categorised certain staff costs and indirect costs as ineligible.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 July 2021 –

Csordas and Others v Commission

(Case T‑146/20)

(Action for annulment – Civil service – Officials – Regularity of the elections for the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee – Presentation of a joint list of six trade unions or professional organisations – Supervisory obligation of the institution – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions brought by officials – Staff Committee – Elections – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Limits (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 41-47)

2. Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Regularity – Obligation of the institutions to ensure the regularity of electoral operations – Scope (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 9(2), 90 and 91) (see paras 56, 57, 61-67)

3. Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg – Presentation of a joint list of several trade unions or professional organisations – No indication of the name of the organisation to which each candidate belongs – Infringement of the principle of freedom of choice of the elector in voting – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 9(2) and (3) and 24b and Annex II, Art. 1, fourth para.) (see paras 76, 77, 84-88)

4. Officials – Representation – Staff Committee – Elections – Staff Committee of the Commission in Luxembourg – Presentation of a joint list of several trade unions or professional organisations – Obligation to maintain the proportionality of the number of candidates belonging to those organisations at the representativeness sharing rates agreed between them – None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 24b) (see paras 107-109)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment or a declaration that the Commission’s failure to prevent or censure a number of acts or omissions relating to the November 2019 elections to the Luxembourg local section of the Commission’s Staff Committee is unlawful; second, annulment of the Commission’s memorandum of 28 November 2019 concerning the calculation of the representativeness of representative trade unions and professional organisations in the institution; and third, the annulment of any decision concerning the allocation of additional resources to the trade unions or professional organisations signatories to the representativeness agreement of 14 October 2019 in relation to those available to them on the basis of the representativeness that had been conferred on them following the 2016 elections of the Luxembourg local section of the Staff Committee.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2021 –

Natale v Italy

(Case T‑469/21 R)

(Application for 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 for suspension of operation of Decreto-legge n. 105, emanato il 23 luglio 2021 – Misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 e per l’esercizio in sicurezza di attivita’ sociali ed economiche (Decree-Law No 105 of 23 July 2021 adopting urgent measures to deal with the COVID-19 health crisis and to enable a return to social and economic activities, GURI No 175 of 23 July 2021) in so far as it is contrary, first, to 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), and to Regulation (EU) 2021/954 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) with regard to third-country nationals legally staying or residing in the territories of Member States during the COVID-19 pandemic (OJ 2021 L 211, p. 24), and, second, to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2021 –

Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T‑22/21)

(Action for annulment – Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance – Non-member State – National public procurement – Termination of the contract by the contracting authority – Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee – Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-member State or his deputy – Lack of jurisdiction)

Action for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Pre-Accession Assistance Instrument – Non-member State – National public procurement – Termination of the contract by the contracting authority – Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee – Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-member State or by his or her deputy – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility

(Arts 263 and 288 TFEU)

(see paras 22-25, 30, 34-36)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 5 November 2020, with reference GK/Regio.ddg.d. 1(2020)6793282, concerning the enforcement of the bank guarantee requested by the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Initial statement of position on a request for access to Commission documents – Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8)

(see paras 26, 28-32)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2022 –

Faller and Others v Commission

(Case T‑464/21)

(Action for annulment – Medicinal products for human use – Variation of the conditional marketing authorisation for the Comirnaty medicinal product for human use – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – No direct concern – No individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought by an applicant who is not an addressee of the contested act – Admissibility – Condition – Measure producing binding legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant – Commission decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Measure not bringing about a change in the applicant’s legal position – No interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 25-29, 34, 35)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Applicant not directly affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 37-39, 43, 44, 46)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Action brought by individuals relying on a violation of fundamental rights – Not individually concerned (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 47-51)

4. 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 – Commission decision amending the conditional marketing authorisation for a COVID-19 vaccine – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 4034 (final) of 31 May 2021, amending the conditional marketing authorisation granted by Implementing Decision C(2020) 9598 (final) for Comirnaty – COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside modified), a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by YI and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by EW and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Mr Arnošt Komárek and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II.

3. Ms Sonja Faller and the other applicants whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.
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)

(see paras 19, 21, 22)
Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 26 November 2021 –

Puigdemont i Casamajó and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑272/21 RII)

(Interim measures – Institutional law – Member of Parliament – Privileges and immunities – Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the Parliament – Application for suspension of operation – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Concept – Condition for granting the interim measure – Capacity of new facts to call into question the assessments which determined the dismissal of the first application (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160) (see paras 17-19, 24)

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Effects – Stay of the criminal proceedings – Scope – Suspension of the European Arrest Warrant (Art. 267 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23, first para.; Council Framework Decision 2002/584) (see para. 25)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – No undermining of the right freely to exercise the parliamentary mandate and the proper function of the Parliament – No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Protocol No 7 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties, Art. 9, first para. (b), and second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 29)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 32, 33)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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 15-18)
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Third party capacity (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 24(6) and 123(1)(c)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility – Prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 123(1)(b)) (see paras 25-28)