ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2010 – Strålfors v OHIM (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-212/10)

Action for annulment – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to the whole of the annexes – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 5-7)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 1112/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Strålfors AB Community trade mark sought: Word mark IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS for goods in Class 16 – Community trade mark application No 8235186 Decision of the examiner: Registration partially refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the contested decision





Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Strålfors AB is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 June 2010 – Regione Puglia v Commission

(Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Decision to reduce Community financial assistance – Debit note – Application to suspend the 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 – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Situation capable of seriously compromising the exercise by a regional body of its public service tasks – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-22, 25)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of remedy by the granting of compensation in the main action – Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24)

Re:

ACTION to suspend the operation, first, of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), allocated to Italy for the operational programme POR Puglia, within Objective 1 (2000‑2006) and, second, of the payment order contained in the debit note of 26 February 2010 issued following that decision.

Operative part

1. Cases T-84/10 R and T-223/10 R are joined for the purposes of this order.

2. The applications for interim measures are dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2011 – Companhia Previdente v Commission

(Case T-414/10 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application to suspend the operation of a measure – Financial loss – No exceptional circumstances – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-23, 25-30, 43)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking account of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37, 41-42)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court; Art. 104(2)) (see para. 52)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Pre-stressing steel) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to establish a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

1.The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 April 2011 – Xeda International v Commission

(Case T-71/10 R II)

Application for interim measures – Directive 91/414/EEC – Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Other application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – New application for suspension of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414 – Obligation to withdraw authorisations for products containing that substance already carried out by the Member States – Legal impossibility of extending the period of grace allowed for the disposal of those products – Financial loss below the seriousness threshold of 10% – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 20-28)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 September 2011 – Communauté de communes de Lacq v Commission

(Case T-132/10)

Non-contractual liability – Concentration – Commission decision declaring compatible the concentration operation for the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp by Celanese Corp. – No undertaking by Celanese to continue the operation of the factory in Pardies (France) – No breach of a rule of law by the Commission – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Sufficiently serious breach of EU law (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 19-21)

2. Competition – Concentrations – Examination by the Commission – Commitments by the undertakings concerned to render the notified transaction compatible with the common market – Undertakings given in the context of the Commission’s initial investigation, but not referred to in the Commission’s final decision at the conclusion of the in-depth investigation – Obligation on the Commission to compel the undertakings concerned to comply with such undertakings – None (Council Regulation No 139/2004, Arts 6(2) and 8(2)) (see paras 23-25, 28)

3. European Union law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions (see para. 32)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for various kinds of harm allegedly suffered by the Communauté de communes de Lacq by reason of unlawfulness and deficiency of the Commission’s behaviour following the concentration operation involving the acquisition of control of Acetex Corp. situated in Pardies (France) by Celanese Corp.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as partially devoid of legal foundation and partially manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2011 – Fuchshuber Agrarhandel v Commission

(Case T-451/10)

Action for damages – Common agricultural policy – Standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market – Commission’s supervisory power – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Action obviously lacking any basis in law

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 13, 15)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure – Need to be taken into consideration when examining liability (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 14, 26)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGF and the EAFRD – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks – Scope – Unreliable controls – Refusal to assume responsibility (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 9(1)) (see para. 19)

Re:

ACTION seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the lack of supervision, by the Commission, of the conditions for implementing standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as obviously lacking any basis in law.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2012 —

Vesteda Groep v Commission





(Case T-206/10)

State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to social housing corporations — Existing aid — Decision accepting the commitments made by the Member State — Action for annulment — Locus standi — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision terminating an aid proceeding — Competitor of the undertaking receiving the aid — Right to bring an action — Conditions (Arts 108 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 32, 34-37)

2. State aid — Existing aid — Examination by the Commission of the compatibility of the aid within the common market — Undertakings given by the Member State dispensing the aid — Commission unable to open the formal investigation procedure — No obligation on the Commission to place the parties challenged in a position to submit their observations (Art. 108 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 19(1)) (see paras 43-48)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 January 2012 – Groupe Partouche v Commission

(Case T-315/10)

Action for annulment – Concentrations – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas in law not set out in the application – Reference to elements in an annex – Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-20, 27, 36-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 3333 of 21 May 2010 declaring the concentration operation for the acquisition by La Française des Jeux and Groupe Lucien Barrière of joint control over the undertaking Newco (Case COMP/M.5786 – Française des Jeux/Groupe Lucien Barrière/JV) to be compatible with the internal market and the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

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

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions for admissibility

–

Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought

–

Suspension of the measure in question granted by the General Court

–

Inadmissibility of a fresh application for interim measures having the same subject-matter and not conferring any advantage on the applicant (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 10-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010 C(2010) 9525 final State aid, MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows that Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s new operations after 15 February 2011 must be terminated.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG’s application for leave to intervene.

3. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Whether directly concerned

–

Criteria

–

Provision of a regulation giving Member States the right to refuse reimbursement of certain euro coins unfit for circulation

–

Applicant not directly concerned

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, second para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1210/2010) (see paras 18-19, 24-25, 28

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the Kingdom of Spain’s application for leave to intervene.
Keywords



Keywords

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. 104(2)) (see paras 14‑16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21, 22)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Assessment in the light of the situation of the group to which the applicant belongs — Application to a natural person exercising control over that company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 33‑36)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38‑40)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 47)

6. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant — Interest of the applicant affected — Interests of third parties affected — Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 50)

7. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Concept (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 53, 54)
Keywords



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Interim measures

–

Main action dismissed in the meantime

–

Application which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 2-4

)
An undertaking cannot, in principle, bring an action for annulment of a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme if it is concerned by that decision solely by virtue of belonging to the sector in question and being a potential beneficiary of the scheme. Such a decision is, vis-à-vis that undertaking, a measure of general application covering situations which are determined objectively and entails legal effects for a class of persons envisaged in a general and abstract manner. However, where the decision in question is of concern to the applicant undertaking not only by virtue of its being an undertaking in the sector concerned and a potential beneficiary of the aid scheme, but also by virtue of its being an actual beneficiary of individual aid granted under that scheme, the recovery of which has been ordered by the Commission, that decision is of individual concern to the applicant and the applicant’s action against it is admissible. It cannot be inferred from that formulation, which places the recovery obligation on the same level as the applicant’s status as an actual beneficiary, that the requirement of such an obligation is of secondary importance, or indeed superfluous.

Since the applicant undertaking has not been subject to a recovery obligation, it cannot be considered to be individually concerned by such a decision.

(see paras 22-23, 27, 31)
It is clear from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, which reproduces the wording of Article 58 of that Statute, that an appeal is limited to points of law and lies on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant, or an infringement of Union law by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Civil Service Tribunal has sole jurisdiction to find and assess the facts, so that such an appraisal does not constitute a point of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court. However, the jurisdiction of the General Court to review the findings of fact by the Civil Service Tribunal extends to the substantive inaccuracy of those findings as apparent from the documents in the file, the distortion of the evidence, the legal characterisation of that evidence and the question whether the rules relating to the burden of proof and the taking of evidence have been observed.

(see paras 20-21)

C‑403/04 P and C‑405/04 P Sumitomo Metal Industries and Nippon Steel v Commission [2007] ECR I‑729, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited therein

T‑248/08 P Doktor v Council [2010] ECR-SC, paras 39 to 43 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

8 July 2013

Case T‑238/11 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Invalidity allowance — Payment of arrears — Default interest — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 February 2011 in Case F‑81/09 Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and those of the European Commission in the present proceedings.

Summary