ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
20

It should be noted that, as submitted by the applicants, the first plea in the actions raised an important issue from the point of view of EU law, involving a degree of factual and legal complexity and requiring detailed analysis. That plea concerned the application of Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation, which sets out, in essence, various possibilities on the basis of which the institutions may take into account the costs associated, in particular, with the production and sale of a product under investigation for the purpose of calculating the normal value of the like product within the meaning of that regulation. In the present cases, the applicants claimed that the Council had, in essence, infringed Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation by disregarding, when calculating the normal value of the like product within the meaning of the Basic Regulation, the prices of the raw materials included in the applicants’ accounting records. They contended, in particular, that the Council misapplied the judgment of 7 February 2013, Acron and Dorogobuzh v Council (T‑235/08, not published, EU:T:2013:65). It follows that that plea required detailed analysis, as the issue it raised led the General Court to rule, in particular, on the burden of proof and the discretion that the EU institutions have when calculating the normal value of the like product within the meaning of the Basic Regulation (see, to that effect and by analogy, order of 19 December 2019, Unitec Bio and Others v Council, C‑602/16 P-DEP, not published, EU:C:2019:1148, paragraphs 30 to 32).
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 May 2015 —

Costa v Parliament

(Case T‑197/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Former Member of the European Parliament — Person in receipt of a Members’ retirement pension — Recipient of an allowance as a President of a port authority — Rule against cumulation — Recovery of the pension received — Debit note — Application for a stay of enforcement — Infringement of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

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 (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 9, 11)

2. 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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see para. 10)

3. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 12-14)

4. Application for interim measures — 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 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16, 17, 19)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical loss based on the happening of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to justify urgency — Debit note of an institution without executory force — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 299, first para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012, Art. 79(2)) (see paras 22-25)

6. European Parliament — Powers — Adoption of executory decisions including a financial obligation on the addressees — Exclusion — Consequences (Art. 299 TFEU) (see para. 26)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of enforcement of debit note No 2015-239 (Reference 303074) of the European Parliament of 23 February 2015, ordering the applicant to pay the sum of EUR 49 770.42 by 31 March 2015 at the latest.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2015 —

POA v Commission

(Case T‑584/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Publication of an application for registration of a protected designation of origin — ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No 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 — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Burden of proof — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 21-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the measure adopted by the Commission dated 28 July 2015 entitled ‘Publication of an application pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs’ (OJ 2015 C 246, p. 9).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 23 November 2015 —

Slovenia v Commission

(Case T‑118/15)

‛Action for annulment — EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Time-limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Out of time — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Subsequent publication of the decision in the Official Journal — No effect (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third para., TFEU) (see paras 19, 21-24, 28, 31, 33)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Concept (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third para., TFEU) (see para. 20)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Italian Republic, the French Republic and Hungary.

3. The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2016 —

Portugal v Commission

(Case T‑556/15)

‛Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Subsequent publication of the decision in the Official Journal — No effect (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU) (see paras 20-23, 25-28, 31-33, 36-38, 40)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Concept (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Acts of the institutions — No general obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU) (see para. 39)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
The assessment of its economic situation for the purposes of determining whether a legal person must be granted legal aid cannot be made having regard solely to its resources considered in isolation, independently of the situation of the direct or indirect holders of its capital.

According to the third paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, legal aid is made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice. It is in the light of that principle, which may be relied on by legal persons, that the conditions for granting legal aid, laid down in Articles 146 to 150 of the Rules of Procedure, must be interpreted.

A legal person cannot be regarded as being deprived of effective access to justice, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, solely because the direct or indirect holders of its capital refuse to use the resources at their disposal in order to enable that legal person to bring legal proceedings. In such circumstances, it is not for the European Union budget, through the funds made available to the General Court, to offset the inaction on the part of persons who control the legal person in question and who, ultimately, are principally interested in safeguarding its rights.

Consequently, in order to assess the financial situation of a legal person requesting the grant of legal aid, it is necessary to take into account not only its own financial resources but also the resources at the disposal of the group of companies as a whole to which it belongs, directly or indirectly, and the financial possibilities open to its shareholders and members, natural and legal persons.

(see paras 16-19)
EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Separate examination of the grounds for refusal in relation to each of the goods or services covered by the application for registration—Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register—Scope

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), and 75, first sentence)

(see para. 37)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) du 13 September 2016

— Sogepa v Commission

(Case T‑761/15)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Crystal-ware — Aid in the form of a loan — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to recover the aid granted to an insolvent undertaking — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

1. Procedure — 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 — Lack of clarity — 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 paras 20, 31)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see para. 34)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission decision (EU) 2015/1825 of 31 July 2014 on non-notified State aid SA.34791 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Belgium — Rescue aid for Val Saint-Lambert SA (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 47).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
3.

Judicial proceedings — Decision or regulation replacing the contested measure in the course of proceedings — Application to modify the application — Specific restrictive measures against certain persons and bodies in view of the situation in Syria — New listing criteria — Presumption of support for the Syrian regime in the case of leading businesspersons operating in Syria — New grounds for listing supported by new evidence — Substantial differences between the two measures — Obligation for the applicant to accompany the request to modify the application with modified pleas in law and arguments — Infringement — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 86(1), (2), (3) and (6); Council Decisions 2011/273/CFSP, 2011/782/CFSP and 2013/255/CFSP, as amended by Decisions (CFSP) 2015/837, 2015/1836, 2016/850, Art. 28(2)(a) and (CFSP) 2015/383;Council Regulations No 442/2011, No 36/2012, as amended by Council Regulations 2015/1828, Art. 15(1)a(a), 2015/375, 2015/828 and 2016/840) (see paras 42, 47, 48, 51-53, 55-57, 60-64)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

27 April 2018 ( *1 )

(Rectification)

In Case T‑718/15,

PTC Therapeutics International Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented initially by C. Thomas, Barrister, G. Castle, B. Kelly, H. Billson, Solicitors, and M. Demetriou QC, and subsequently by C. Thomas, M. Demetriou, G. Castle and B. Kelly,

applicant,

supported by

European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope), represented by D. Scannell, Barrister, and S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor,

intervener,

European Medicines Agency (EMA), represented by T. Jablónski, A. Spina, S. Marino, A. Rusanov and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents,

defendant,

ACTION under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision EMA/722323/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to a document containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of M. Prek, President, F. Schalin (Rapporteur) and M. J. Costeira, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 The Court delivered a judgment on 5 February 2018.

2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, clerical mistakes or errors in calculation or obvious inaccuracies found in paragraph 51 of that judgment.

On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber) hereby orders:

In paragraph 51 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, ‘… as was noted in paragraph 49 above, …’ must be read instead of ‘…as was noted in paragraph Error!Reference source not found. above,…’.

Luxembourg, 27 April 2018 E. Coulon Registrar M. Prek President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Judicial proceedings—Measures of organisation of procedure—Application to remove from the file internal documents of an institution—General rule—Lawfulness—Exceptions—Documents decisive for ensuring judicial review

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 89)

(see paras 27, 28)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 —

Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T‑116/16)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Corporate tax — Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium — Commission letter proposing the adoption of appropriate measures — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission informing a Member State of its preliminary investigation of an existing aid scheme as being incompatible with the internal market and the probable adoption of appropriate measures — Not included — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible (Arts 108(1) and (2) TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 2015/1589, Arts 9 and 21 to 23) (see paras 16-21)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 263 TFEU, requesting annulment of the alleged decision concerning State aid SA.38393 (2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium, annexed to the Commission’s letter of 22 January 2016 seeking to propose appropriate measures to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
PROVISIONAL TEXT OF 5/09/2017

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 June 2017 —

Camerin v Parliament

(Case T‑647/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Retirement age — Request for an extension of the secondment — Rejection of the request — Measure not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Concept—Preparatory act—Letter from the secretary of a political group in the Parliament informing the official of its decision not to request an extension of his secondment to the secretariat of that group—Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 27-31, 35)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Concept—Purely confirmatory measure—Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 39, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the Parliament of 1 December 2015 rejecting the request for an extension of the applicant’s secondment beyond 31 December 2015 and seeking annulment of the decision of the President of the Group of 15 June 2016 rejecting her appeal against that earlier decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Appeal—Grounds—Grounds which are manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 208)

(see para. 10)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2017 — Gaki v Europol

(Case T‑366/16)

(Action for annulment and damages — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Applications seeking an injunction — Manifest inadmissibility — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Pleas and arguments not set out sufficiently clearly and precisely—Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution—Not permissible (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 34)

3. Acts of the institutions—Statement of reasons—Obligation—Scope—Decision taken in a context known to the addressee—Whether summary statement of reasons sufficient (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 41, 42)

4. Actions for annulment—Grounds—Lack of or inadequate statement of reasons—Separate ground from the one concerning substantive legality (Arts 263 TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see para. 45)

5. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Damage—Causal link—Cumulative conditions—One of the conditions not satisfied—Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 52-55)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU requesting that, in essence, Europol be ordered to undertake certain actions, and seeking annulment of the decision of the Joint Supervisory Body of Europol of 4 May 2016 concerning a complaint filed by the applicant, and application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 September 2017 – Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinWärme)

(Case T-719/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark berlinWärme — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

1. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service–Aim–Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service–Meaning (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service–Meaning–Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

4. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service–Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign–Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

5. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Absolute grounds for refusal–Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service–Word mark berlinWärme (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)] (see paras 28, 29, 33, 35, 40)

6. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Assessment of the registrability of a sign–EU rules only taken into account–Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries–Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 30)

7. EU trade mark–Decisions of the Office–Principle of equal treatment–Principle of sound administration–EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice–Principle of legality–Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 36-38)

8. EU trade mark–Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark–Refusal to register based on one of the absolute grounds of refusal listed in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009–Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 43)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO EUIPO of 19 July 2016 (Case R 618/2016-1), relating to the application for registration of the word sign berlinWärme as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 21-24)