ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 February 2012 — Ecologistas en Acción-CODA v Commission



(Case T‑359/10)

Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the development plan for the Cabanyal quarter in Valencia (Spain) — Documents originating from a Member State — Refusal of access — Exception relating to protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice — Environmental information — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Action clearly without legal foundation

1. European Union — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Request for access to environmental information — Regulation No 1367/2006 — Limitation of the right of access — Disclosure harming environmental protection — Further exception to the right of access (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 6) (see paras 26‑28)

2. Procedure — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — New plea — Definition (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2), first para.) (see paras 33, 34, 45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission decision of 30 June 2010 refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning the investigation conducted by the Spanish authorities into the file EU‑PILOT 724/09/02 ENVI relating to the special plan for the protection and renovation of the Cabanyal quarter of the city of Valencia (Spain).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Ecologistas en Acción‑CODA is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

(Case T‑453/10)

Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Devolved administration — No direct concern — Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Action by a regional body benefiting from that financing and acting as management authority for the funds received — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 42-57, 65)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 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 2010 L 184, p. 6).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Action brought against the measure forming the subject-matter of the application for suspension – Action for suspension of a provision of a regulation – Main action limited to a claim for compensation – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Claim for interim relief submitted by several applicants – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-20)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Alleged loss arising from measures imposing pecuniary obligations at national level – National rights of action – Effect (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 21-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures and suspension of operation of Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), as maintained in force by Article 128(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications 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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-23, 25-26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28-29)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.
Case T-395/11

Elti d.o.o.

v

Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro

‛Actions for annulment — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Digitalisation of Montenegrin Public Broadcasting — Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility’

Summary of the Order

Actions for annulment — Capacity to act as a defendant — Union delegation — No status as a body, office or agency of the European Union — Measures adopted by the head of delegation of the European Union in a public procurement procedure — Measures attributable to the Commission — Application inadmissible

(Arts 221 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 51, second para., 59, 60a and 85; Council Decision 2010/427)

It follows from Article 221 TFEU, from Decision 2010/427 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS) and from the second paragraph of Article 51, Articles 60a and 85 of Regulation No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, that the legal status of the Union Delegations is characterised by a two-fold organic and functional dependence with respect to the EEAS and the Commission, which precludes their being considered a body for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU.

Measures adopted pursuant to delegated powers are normally attributed to the delegating institution, on which it falls to defend the measure in question before the courts. This outcome holds all the more true for signature by delegation and in a scenario of sub-delegation. The measures adopted by the head of a delegation of the European Union, acting in his capacity as sub-delegated authorising officer of the Commission, in a public procurement procedure, do not confer capacity on that delegation to act as a defendant in legal proceedings and are, in that case, attributable to the Commission.

It follows that a delegation of the European Union cannot be considered a body, office or agency of the European Union and be recognised as having capacity to act as a defendant in legal proceedings, and that an action brought against such a delegation is inadmissible.

(see paras 46, 62-64, 73, 74)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of introducing a fresh application — Condition — New facts — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 9-10, 12, 14-15)

2. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Consequences when examining a new application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 14)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission

(Case T-546/11)

‛Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility’

1. Proceedings — Legal basis of an action — Choice for the applicant, not the EU judicature (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action concerning a letter of an institution inseparable from contractual relations between the latter and the applicant — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 32-34, 50)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Applicant not having expressly requested reclassification — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion from reclassification (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 58, 59)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of the Commission of 2 August 2011 confirming the conclusions of the financial audit concerning the financial statements declared by Technion — Israel Institute of Technology, concerning four contracts concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-2006), and informing Technion of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Action dismissed in the main proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3, 4 ) Subject of the case Re: APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12). Operative part Operative part There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-368/11 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Dismissal of the main action — No need to adjudicate’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Action dismissed in the main proceedings — Request which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3, 4)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide) (OJ 2011 L 101, p. 12).

Operative part

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 — H-Holding v Parliament

(Case T-672/11)

‛Action for failure to act — Action for damages — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution not called upon to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 12-14)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission and Member States to bring judicial proceedings (Arts 258 TFEU and 259 TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Conditions for admissibility (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 16-18)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — None — Inadmissibility (see para. 19)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to commence infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and to call upon OLAF to open an investigation relating to a Czech political party, following its petition of 24 August 2011, and, secondly, action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Parliament’s alleged failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. H-Holding AG is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 — H-Holding v Parliament

(Case T-672/11)

‛Action for failure to act — Action for damages — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution not called upon to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 12-14)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission and Member States to bring judicial proceedings (Arts 258 TFEU and 259 TFEU) (see para. 15)

3. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Conditions for admissibility (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 16-18)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — None — Inadmissibility (see para. 19)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Parliament unlawfully failed to commence infringement proceedings against the Czech Republic and to call upon OLAF to open an investigation relating to a Czech political party, following its petition of 24 August 2011, and, secondly, action for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Parliament’s alleged failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 2014 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission

(Case T‑35/11)

‛Actions for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation on the combined nomenclature — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 861/2010, Annex) (see paras 33-39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

3. Kyocera Mita Europe BV is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 2014 — Kyocera Mita Europe v Commission

(Case T‑35/11)

‛Actions for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation on the combined nomenclature — Included — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 861/2010, Annex) (see paras 33-39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. It is not necessary to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 1 October 2013 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-554/11)

‛Action for annulment — Financing by the European Union of certain projects in Tunisia, in the framework of the EuropeAid programme — Development of an integrated IT system for the Tunisian judiciary — Recovery by the Commission of debts payable to Tunisia by a third party — Debit note — Acts inseparable from the contract — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Exercise of contractual rights by an institution, in the name of and on behalf of one of the parties to the contract — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 29, 30, 35)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Debit note of an institution noting an existing debt and without executory force — Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 299 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Arts 71(2), and 72(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 78(3)) (see paras 36-38)

3. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Statement of the forms of order sought — No clear and precise formulation — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(d)) (see para. 45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to settle sums allegedly payable and requiring repayment of the sum of EUR 281 270.00 paid in the framework of the implementation of the contract EuropeAid/124378/D/SER/TN (No 2007/145-464), communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8 August 2011 (C&F/2011/D/001101), and also of debit note 3241108036, received by the applicant on 17 August 2011, and of all the Commission’s related decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 – Cementos Portland Valderrivas v Commission

(Case T-296/11 R)

Interim relief – Competition – Request for information – Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency

1. Applications 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 23)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Loss capable of subsequent remedy by means of an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

4. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 31)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2368 final of 30 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 – Cement and related products).

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the General Court of 13 July 2011 – Koné v Council

(Case T-349/11)

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Out of time – Clear inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 16)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Katinan Justin Koné is ordered to bear his own costs.