ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 April 2019 — Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission

(Case T‑79/19 R)

(Application for interim measures — Competition — Settlement procedure — Access to documents — No urgency)

1. Application for interim relief — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Statement of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 26-32)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Assessment in litigation on the protection of confidential information — Condition of prima facie case not satisfied — No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 33-36)

3. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage resulting from the publication of confidential information — Burden of proving the irreparable nature of the damage despite the irreversible nature of the disclosure of the information (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 42, 48)

Re

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission C(2019) 743 final of 28 January 2019 on an objection to disclosure submitted by Lantmännen ek för and Lantmännen Agroetanol AB pursuant to Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the functioning and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 14 February 2019, Lantmännen and Lantmännen Agroetanol v Commission (T‑79/19 R), is cancelled.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2019 –

Algebris (UK) and Anchorage Capital Group v SRB

(Case T‑2/19)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — No ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Locus standi — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 37)

2. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 39)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the ‘decision of the SRB, notified to the applicants on 18 December 2018, not to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation of Banco Popular Español, SA’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T‑61/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019 –

Jalkh v Parliament

(Case T-360/19)

(Action for annulment — Institutional law — European Parliament legislative resolution — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Acts intended to have legal effects – Concept (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 16-21)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Assessment by reference to objective criteria – Legislative resolution of the European Parliament – Preparatory act – Act not intended to produce binding legal effects – Not included (Arts 263 and 294 TFEU) (see paras 22-25)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Parliament’s legislative resolution of 16 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations (COM(2018)0338 C8-0214/2018 2018J0170(COD).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Application for 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(4))

(see paras 18-21)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2020 –

ZU v EEAS

(Case T‑499/19)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Sick leave — Negative opinion by the medical service — Amendments made in the Human Resource Management information system — Acts not amenable to review — Acts not adversely affecting an official — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Premature challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Definition — Preparatory act — Opinion of the medical service concerning an official’s sick leave — Amendments made in the Human Resource Management information system — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 30-36)

2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Mandatory — Action brought before rejection of the claim — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91(2)) (see para. 37)

3. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility — Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint — Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision — None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 45, 46)

4. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Hypothetical measures not yet adopted — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 47)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the alleged decisions of the EEAS of 31 August 2018 and 10 January 2019, of the European Commission note of 30 August 2018 providing for a reduction of the applicant’s sick leave and, so far as necessary, of the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2019 rejecting his complaint of 30 November 2018 against that note and against any subsequent decision to deduct his absence from 28 to 31 August 2018 from his annual leave.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 January 2020 –

Silgan International and Silgan Closures v Commission

(Case T‑808/19 R)

(Interim measures — Competition — Request for information — Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

1. Application for 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(4)) (see paras 11-14)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to demonstrate urgency — Request for information sent to the applicant — No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 17-24, 26-32)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 8501 final of 20 November 2019 relating to proceedings under Article 18(3) and Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40522 — Metal packaging).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2020 –

Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T‑840/19)

(Action for annulment – Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to suspend the appeal proceedings pending a definitive decision of the General Court in the case which is likely to influence the pending case – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(1)) (see paras 25, 26, 28)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1008/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks consisting exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Requirement of availability

(Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 7(1)(c))

(see para. 41)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 –

IM v EIB

(Case T‑872/19)

(Action for damages – Institutional law – Position of Chief Executive of the EIF – Vacancy notice – Rejection of the applicant’s application – Lack of autonomy of remedies – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive – Inadmissibility (Arts 263, 268 and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 20-22)

2. Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to the action for annulment – Limits – Action seeking the same outcome as the action for annulment – Inadmissibility (Arts 263, 268 and 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Rejection of an application for a position – Included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 33)

4. Judicial proceedings – General Court seised under an arbitration clause – EU judicature not having jurisdiction in the absence of an expression of the intention of the parties to confer jurisdiction upon it to rule on a contractual dispute (Arts 256 and 274 TFEU) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the decisions of 3 and 9 October 2019 by which the EIB rejected the applicant’s application for the position of Chief Executive of the European Investment Fund (EIF).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 –

Noguer Enríquez and Others v Commission

(Case T‑22/19)

(Actions for damages – Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra – Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission regarding the content of the Agreement – Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the Agreement – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions for damages – Subject matter – Application for compensation for damage attributable to the Union – Jurisdiction of the EU Courts – Application for compensation for damage caused by the national authorities – Jurisdiction of the national courts (Arts 268 and 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 32-36)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy – Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law protecting individuals – Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra – Principles of diligence, of sound administration, of non-discrimination, of legitimate expectations and the right to an effective remedy – No infringement – No liability (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20, 21, 41 and 47) (see paras 48-54, 97-100)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy – Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law protecting individuals – Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra – Powers of the Commission in the context of monitoring the implementation of that agreement – No infringement – No liability (see paras 62-74)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Act not amounting to unlawfulness (Art. 17 TEU; Art. 258 TFEU) (see paras 78-87, 101)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of, first, negligence on the part of the Commission in monitoring the implementation of the Monetary Agreement concluded on 30 June 2011 between the European Union and the Principality of Andorra and, second, the Commission’s negligence regarding the content of that agreement.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.
Application for 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 14-17)
Application for 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(4))

(see paras 13-16)
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law – Ineffective pleas in law – Pleas in law referring to the grounds of another decision

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see paras 26, 47, 50, 62, 79)
Application for 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(4))

(see paras 40-43)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2020 –

Valiante v Commission

(Case T‑13/20)

(Action for annulment – Civil Service – Officials – Internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 (AD 10) – Submission of the application by means of the form provided for that purpose and referred to in Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Separate application to be admitted to the competition submitted at the same time to the appointing authority – Eligibility criteria – Selection board’s decision rejecting the applicant’s application – Appointing authority’s decision refusing the applicant’s request to disregard one of the conditions set out in the competition notice in order to admit him to the competition – Challenge to the appointing authority’s decision not that of the selection board – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Decision of a competition selection board – Prior administrative complaint – Complaint submitted to the appointing authority against its decision refusing to disregard one of the conditions set out in the competition notice – No appeal against the selection board's decision to reject the applicant’s application – Inadmissibility (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(2)) (see paras 31-36)

2. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Meaning – Experienced official mistaken as to the remedies for challenging the competition selection board’s decision – Excluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 40-44)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 14 March 2019 by which that institution’s appointing authority rejected the applicant’s application to be admitted to the internal competition COM/1/AD 10/18 (AD 10), on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition set out in the related competition notice concerning the holding of grade AD 8.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2021 –

Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe)

(Case T‑365/20)

(Action for annulment – EU trade mark – Application for an EU trade mark consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe – Absolute ground for refusal – No distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Conditions – Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126) (see para. 18)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Concept – Criteria for assessment – Recognition of the distinctive character of the sign not subject to a finding of a specific level of linguistic or artistic creativity or imaginativeness (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 32-35)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Assessment of distinctive character – Criteria – Position mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

4. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Three-dimensional mark constituted by the shape of the product – Distinctive character – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 38-40)

5. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks devoid of distinctive character – Mark consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 54, 58, 61)

6. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Examination of the facts of the Office's own motion – Registration of a new trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Burden of proof (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Arts 7(1) and 95(1)) (see para. 55)

7. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Prior registration of the trade mark in certain Member States – Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 59)

8. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU – Recourse by the Board of Appeal to implicit reasoning – Whether permissible – Conditions (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1)) (see paras 66-68)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 (Case R 1706/2019-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting in wavy crisscrossing lines on the sole of a shoe as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Letter from the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises terminating the grant agreement concluded in the context of a framework programme for research and innovation – Act intended to produce binding effects outside the contractual framework and involving the exercise of the prerogatives of public authority – Precluded

(Arts 263, 274 and 288 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1291/2013, Art. 53(2))

(see paras 47-52, 55, 56)