ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2021 –

Aloe Vera of Europe v Commission

(Case T‑189/21 R)

(Interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 – Substances prohibited, restricted or under Community scrutiny – Regulation (EU) 2021/468 – Prohibition of preparations from the leaf of Aloe species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – 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 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 20-23)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Risk having to be normally borne by an undertaking operating in a highly regulated market – Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 26, 31-33, 40, 52)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (OJ 2021 L 96, p. 6), for a period of nine months from the date of the present order.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see para. 8)
2.

Officials – Remuneration – Weightings – Fixing – Retroactive update because of the late publication of purchase price data – No breach of the principle of equal treatment or of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and equivalence of purchasing power (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 64 and Annex X, Art. 13) (see paras 78-81)
3.

Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Examination of the legality of a national act forming part of a composite administrative procedure – Regard to the discretion of the EU institution when adopting the EU act resulting from the process (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 30)
6

Article 93 of the withdrawal agreement, which is entitled ‘New State aid and European Anti-Fraud Office procedures’, provides: ‘1. In respect of aid granted before the end of the transition period, for a period of 4 years after the end of the transition period, the European Commission shall be competent to initiate new administrative procedures on State aid governed by [Council] Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 [of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)] concerning the United Kingdom. The European Commission shall continue to be competent after the end of the 4-year period for procedures initiated before the end of that period. Article 92(5) of this Agreement shall apply mutatis mutandis. The European Commission shall inform the United Kingdom of any new administrative proceedings on State aid initiated under the first subparagraph of this paragraph within 3 months of initiating it. 2. Without prejudice to Articles 136 and 138 of this Agreement, for a period of 4 years after the end of the transition period, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) shall be competent to initiate new investigations governed by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1)] in respect of: (a) facts that occurred before the end of the transition period; or (b) any customs debt arising after the end of the transition period from the discharge procedures referred to in Article 49(1) of this Agreement. OLAF shall continue to be competent after the end of the 4-year period for procedures initiated before the end of that period. OLAF shall inform the United Kingdom of any new investigation initiated under the first subparagraph of this paragraph within 3 months of initiating that investigation.’
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 –

D’Amato and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑722/21 R)

(Application for interim measures – Members of Parliament – Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 8-11)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 14)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 26)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Risk of fundamental rights being undermined – Risk not in itself constituting serious damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure – Particularly serious nature of the prima facie case – Irrelevant (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 30)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Need to plead the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 36, 41)

6. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 15 November 2021, D’Amato and Others v Parliament (T‑722/21 R), is set aside.
2.

Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Annulment of the contested act following the upholding of the complaint – Obligation of the administration to adopt a new decision in the light of the objections made in the complaint (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90) (see paras 41, 43)
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13-16)
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

(Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 12-15)
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 16-19)
61989F0001

JOINED OPINIONS OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL VESTERDORF DELIVERED ON 10 JULY 1991. - RHONE-POULENC SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-1/89. - PETROFINA SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-2/89. - ATOCHEM SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-3/89. - BASF SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-4/89. - ENICHEM ANIC SPA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-6/89. - HERCULES CHEMICALS NV V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-7/89. - DSM NV V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-8/89. - HUELS AG V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-9/89. - HOECHST AG V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-10/89. - SHELL INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-11/89. - SOLVAY & CIE SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-12/89. - IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PLC V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-13/89. - MONTEDIPE SA V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-14/89. - CHEMIE LINZ AG V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. - CASE T-15/89. - COMPETITION - CONCEPTS OF AGREEMENT AND CONCERTED PRACTICE - COLLECTIVE RESPONSABILITY.



European Court reports 1991 Page II-00867
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/24

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-199/04)

(2004/C 217/44)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd, Landhi, Karachi (Pakistan), represented by L. Ruessmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (1) to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on the product of the applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation. In support of its application to annul that regulation, the applicant invokes the following grounds:

— a breach of Article 5, paragraphs 7 and 9, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (2) and a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, insofar as the initiation of the investigation is concerned. The applicant submits that the complaint, on the basis of which the investigation was opened, was manifestly insufficient both with regard to what it presents as facts and with regard to its reasoning in support of the opening of an investigation,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Articles 2, paragraphs 3 and 5, and Article 18, paragraph 4, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, with regard to the calculation of the normal value,

— a breach of Article 2, paragraph 10, of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement and of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 253 EC in connexion with the drawback adjustment in the comparison of the normal value and export price,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, as regards the determination of the existence of material injury as well as the establishment of a causal link between the allegedly dumped imports and the alleged injury.

(1) OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1

(2) OJ L 56, 06.03.1996 p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/36

Action brought on 3 November 2005 — Kay v Commission

(Case T-421/05)

(2006/C 48/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roderick Neil Kay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision of 31 January 2005;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was an official of the Commission in grade B*7. After passing the external competition COM/A/3/02, he was appointed by the contested decision to an administrator post in grade A*6.

By his action, the applicant disputes his classification, submitting that he should have been classified in one of the grades A*8, A*9 or A*10. He also disputes the loss of all his promotion points, constituting his ‘rucksack’, following his reclassification.

In support of his action, the applicant claims infringement of Article 2(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which he considers applicable to his situation, instead of Article 5(2) of that annex, which the Commission applied. In addition, he pleads breach of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations, protection of acquired rights and equal treatment between officials.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 182/39

Action brought on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren against the European Training Foundation

(Case T-180/05)

(2005/C 182/73)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 2005 by Pia Landgren, Turin (Italy), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of 25 June 2004 of the former Director of the Foundation dismissing the applicant;

2. annul, if necessary, the decision of 19 January 2005 of the Director of Training rejecting the complaint made by the applicant on 27 September against the first decision;

3. order the Foundation to pay, in compensation for the material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, a sum equivalent to the salary and pension she would have received if she had been able to continue her career at the Foundation until the age of 65, reduced by the amount of the allowances for dismissal and unemployment and the pension she has received or will receive because of her dismissal;

4. order the Foundation to pay the applicant a sum at the Court's discretion to make good the non-material damage caused to her by the unlawfulness of the contested decision;

5. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, the Foundation has not established that the decision to dismiss the applicant is based on a valid ground in law, particularly as that decision is in apparent contradiction with the applicant's staff report for 2003.

The applicant also claims that the real reason for her dismissal is manifestly unlawful and contrary to the interest of the service because it is based on a prior agreement that she would leave the Foundation after 31 December 2003.

Moreover, the applicant submits that the ground for the contested decision is unlawful and arbitrary if the refusal of the Head of Department to retain her is based on adverse assessments made of her in the past.

Finally, the applicant raises pleas of failure to state reasons, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right to be heard and manifest errors of assessment, if the refusal of the Head of Department and/or the dismissal are based on professional failings within the EECA department or generally.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/35

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-39/06)

(2006/C 86/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Transcatab S.p.A. in Liquidation (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: Cristoforo Osti and Alessandra Prastaro, avvocati)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— Annul in part Article 1.1 of Commission Decision C (2005) 4012 def. of 20 October 2005, in which it found that SCC (and therefore Alliance One) should be held to be jointly liable for the infringements of Article 81 committed by Transcatab;

— Consequently reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs in full, including those of Transcatab.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is the subject of the present action is the same as that in Case T-11/06 Tabacchi v Commission. As regards the applicant, the decision holds the company Alliance One International jointly liable in its capacity as the ultimate holding company TRANSCATAB.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the Commission:

— erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of 10 % of turnover.

— Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market, the downstream market and consumers, as well as the limited size of the relevant geographical market.

— Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million.

— Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to 1998 from that of the following period and considered TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999 to 2002, the Commission infringed the principle of equality, in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal context was confused but did not apply the same finding to the processors.

— infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capacity as members of the Associazione professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors.
—

that the Commission made an obvious error by using for all the participants in the infringement, save the applicant, overall market shares in 1999, the last full year of the infringement concerning both products (sodium perborate and hydrogen peroxide). Surprisingly, in relation to Caffaro, the Commission used instead market data for 1998, whereas, according to settled case-law, the Commission must, for the purpose of assessing the specific weight of an undertaking, take into consideration the turnover achieved by each undertaking during the reference year. The case-law has interpreted that principle to the effect that only the use of a common reference year for all the undertakings participating in the same infringement guarantees equal treatment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/14

Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Armando Álvarez v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-78/06)

(2006/C 121/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armando Álvarez (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Garayar and A. García Castillo, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Declare the present action for annulment admissible;

— Annul Decision C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005, in Case COMP/F/38.354 in so far as it imputes liability to Armando Álvarez, S.A.;

— Order the Commission to pay all costs incurred by Armando Álvarez, S.A. in the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks annulment of Commission C(2005) 4634 Final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — industrial bags. In the contested decision, the Commission states that the applicant, together with other companies, infringed Article 81 EC by participating, in the period 1991-2002, in agreements and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag sector in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain and France. In respect of these infringements, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant jointly and severally with Plásticos Españoles, S.A.

In support of its claim, the applicant alleges that the Commission wrongly assessed the facts and infringed the principle of the presumption of innocence and the claimant's rights of defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/26

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Ballast Nedam v Commission

(Case T-361/06)

(2007/C 20/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Ballast Nedam N.V. (represented by: A.R. Bosman and J.M.M. van de Hel, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006, notified to the claimant on 25 September 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), to the extent to which that decision is addressed to the claimant;

— in the alternative, annul the decision in part, to the extent to which it is addressed to the claimant, with regard to the duration of the infringement and reduce the fine imposed on the claimant accordingly;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

According to the claimant, the Commission assumed, on grounds that are legally and factually flawed, that the claimant exercised a determining influence on the market conduct of Ballast Nedam Infra B.V. and Ballast Nedam Grond en Wegen B.V.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes, in the first place, a breach of Article 81 EC. Second, the claimant submits that there has been an infringement of the general principles of Community law, in particular the principle of the presumption of innocence. In conclusion, the claimant contends that there has been a breach of Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the rights of the defence in that it was not until the decision that the claimant's liability was assumed. The claimant was thus not given an opportunity to disprove that view by adducing evidence.