ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 October 2015 —

Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias v Council

(Case T‑731/14)

‛Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action by an entity promoting the general interests of a category of natural or legal persons — Admissibility — Condition — Locus standi of its members individually (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 19, 20)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22, 25, 33)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Counter-measures adopted by Russia, prohibiting the importation of agricultural products from the EU — Action by an agricultural cooperative having its sales contracts cancelled by reason of the said counter-measures — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 833/2014; Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP) (see paras 26-31)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Agrotikos Synetairismos Profitis Ilias is ordered to bear its own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

3. There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter informally calling upon a Member State to pay default interest in the context of the placing at the EU budget’s disposal of traditional own resources — Not included — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1150/2000; Council Decision 2007/436) (see paras 13-15, 29-42, 44, 47)

2. Own resources of the European Union — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Obligation to credit to the Commission’s account — Delay in crediting the amount — Obligation to pay interest (Council Regulation No 1150/2000, Arts 9(1), and 11(1)) (see paras 16-18)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Responsibility of the Member States — Scope (Council Regulation No 1150/2000, Arts 2(1), 9(1), and 17(1) and (2); Council Decision 2007/436, Arts 2(1)(a), and 8(1)) (see paras 22-28)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly made by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Budget contained in the letter (BUDG/B/03MV D (2014) 3486706 of 21 October 2014, by which the Commission applied Article 11 of amended Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom on the system of the European Communities’ own resources (OJ 2007 L 130, p. 1) and fixed at EUR 3 172 388.46 the amount of default interest to be paid by the Kingdom of Spain, at the latest on the last working day two months following the dispatch of that letter.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear the costs.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2016 —

SolarWorld and Others v Council

(Case T‑142/14)

‛Actions for annulment — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duties — Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking — Non-severability — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Objective criterion (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 48-51)

2. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Provision of a Council regulation exempting from anti-dumping duties certain imports subject to an undertaking accepted by the Commission — Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the regulation — Condition not satisfied (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1239/2013, Arts 1(2), and 2) (see paras 54, 55, 60, 61)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. are removed from Case T‑142/14 as interveners.

3. SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA are ordered to pay their own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures.
A physical or legal person is individually concerned by an act which is not addressed to that person only if that act affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of those factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by a decision.

In the case of an action for annulment of Regulation No 537/2014, on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities, an applicant carrying on that activity as a statutory auditor is not individually concerned either by the contested regulation in general, or by Article 21 of that regulation, and therefore does not have capacity to act under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. The fact that the contested regulation applies to situations which are objectively determined by its own provisions and produces legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged generally and in the abstract shows that it is not of individual concern. The contested regulation concerns the applicant only in his capacity as a statutory auditor who carries out the activity of examining the accounts of public-interest entities, a situation which is objectively envisaged by the contested regulation, without the legislature having taken account of the individual situation of the members of that profession in any way. Furthermore, the requirements concerning the composition of the bodies responsible for the supervision of statutory auditors carrying out that activity are formulated in a general manner and apply indiscriminately to all traders and all authorities falling within the scope of the said regulation.

Secondly, the persons affected by the requirements described in Article 21 of Regulation No 537/2014 were neither identified nor identifiable when the contested regulation was adopted. Thus, an unknown number of traders can be added to the category of persons to which the applicant belonged when the contested regulation was adopted, such that that category cannot be regarded as a limited class. On the contrary, it is an indeterminate and indeterminable group of operators that is concerned, the class of which may increase in size after adoption of the contested regulation. Traders belonging to such an open category are not individually concerned by the measure at issue. Thirdly, an alleged right to be supervised by an autonomous professional body made up of members of the accountancy profession, even assuming it were established, would not individually distinguish the applicant in any way from the indeterminate and indeterminable group of traders who are practising members of that profession and who examine the accounts of public-interest entities.

(see paras 31, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51)
According to settled case-law, opposition proceedings are devoid of purpose if the earlier trade mark on which they are based is cancelled. Therefore, in such a case, the action for annulment brought before the Court against the decision of the Board of Appeal also becomes devoid of purpose. According to Article 55(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the EU trade mark, an EU trade mark which has been declared invalid is to be deemed not to have had, as from the outset, the effects specified in that regulation. It follows that the earlier mark must be deemed not to have produced its effects and, therefore, not to have been able to serve as a basis for opposition to the mark applied for.

Even if the applicant claims that a decision of the Court on the merits in the annulment action would procure him an advantage, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the interest in bringing proceedings must continue until the final decision, failing which there will be no need to adjudicate, which presupposes that the action must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for the party bringing it.

(see paras 20-22, 25)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 May 2016 —

Stagecoach Group v EUIPO (MEGABUS.COM)

(Case T‑805/14)

‛European Union trade mark — Application for a European Union word mark MEGABUS.COM — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction addressed to the Office — Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 14)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 16, 17)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark MEGABUS.COM (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 30-33)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 26, 27)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept — Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned — Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 28)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 29)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2014 (Case R 1894/2013-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MEGABUS.COM as a European Union trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law;
In paragraph 156 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, it must be read ‘It is sufficient that, as in the present case, the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into consideration is justified by other factors capable of influencing the determination of gravity pursuant to that provision […]’ instead of ‘It is sufficient that the proportion of the value of sales to be taken into consideration is justified by other factors capable of influencing the determination of gravity pursuant to that provision […]’.
Although Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants makes it possible to renew a temporary staff contract, it is not an entitlement, but merely a possibility left to the discretion of the competent authority. That discretion must, however, be exercised in compliance with the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff.

Applied to a decision on the possible renewal of a temporary staff contract, the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff thus requires the competent authority, when it takes its decision, to balance the interests of the service and the interests of the staff member. The duty to have regard for the welfare of staff also involves the obligation for the competent authority to explain, as part of the statement of grounds for the decision not to renew the contract, the reasons why it had allowed the interests of the service to prevail.

(see paras 27-29, 31)

Judgments of 28 May 1980 in Kuhner v Commission, 33/79 and 75/79, ECR, EU:C:1980:139, para. 22, and of 29 June 1994 in Klinke v Court of Justice, C‑298/93 P, ECR, EU:C:1994:273, para. 38

Judgments of 12 December 2000 in Dejaiffe v OHIM, T‑223/99, ECR-SC, EU:T:2000:292, para. 53, and of 15 October 2008 in Potamianos v Commission, T‑160/04, ECR-SC, EU:T:2008:438, para. 30 and the case law cited therein

Judgment of 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, T‑444/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:865, paras 30, 36 and 37
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 November 2015 —

Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T‑203/15)

‛Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark WORLD OF BINGO — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Assessment of the descriptive nature of a sign — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service — Word mark WORLD OF BINGO (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 18, 19)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1900/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 April 2016 —

Dima v EUIPO (Shape of a box consisting of two open cubes)

(Case T‑326/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Form of a box consisting of two open cubes — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment — Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of the habitual shapes of the type of products concerned — Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of a box (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 22, 23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2015 (Case R 2567/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a box composed of two open cubes as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Case T‑438/15

Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL and Others

v

European Commission

‛State aid — Corporation tax — Aid in favour of Belgian ports granted by Belgium — Commission letter informing the Member State of its preliminary assessment of that aid as being incompatible with the internal market and of the likely adoption of appropriate measures — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 9 March 2016

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Letter from the Commission informing a Member State of its preliminary investigation of an existing aid scheme as being incompatible with the internal market and the probable adoption of appropriate measures — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible

(Arts 108(1) TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 17(1), and 18)

A letter adopted by the Commission in the context of the cooperation stage referred to in Article 17(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [108 TFEU], whereby the Commission informs the Member State of its preliminary investigation of an existing aid scheme does not constitute a measure producing definitive legal effects, capable of forming the subject-matter of an annulment action under Article 263 TFEU.

Such a letter constitutes only a preparatory measure prior to possible proposals for appropriate measures which the Commission may adopt pursuant to Article 18 of that regulation. Given that such a proposal for appropriate measures is not a challengeable act, since in the absence of acceptance by the Member State of the appropriate measures proposed, that Member State is not obliged to adopt them, preparatory acts occurring prior to that proposal for appropriate measures do not, a fortiori, constitute measures producing binding legal effects.

Moreover, in the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages, particularly where they are the culmination of an internal procedure, it is only those measures which definitively determine the position of the institution upon the conclusion of that procedure which are open to challenge and not intermediate measures whose purpose is to prepare the final decision.

(see paras 15, 18-20, 27)
The jurisdiction of the General Court is set out in Article 256 TFEU, as specified in Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Under those provisions, the General Court may adjudicate at first instance on contractual disputes only where these are brought before it on the basis of an arbitration clause. In the absence of such a clause, to do so would be to extend its jurisdiction beyond the limits placed by Article 274 TFEU on the disputes of which it may take cognisance, since that article specifically gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the EU is a party.

Since the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 272 TFEU derogates from the ordinary rules of law, it must be given a restrictive interpretation. Thus, the General Court can adjudicate on a contractual dispute only if the parties have expressed their will to confer that jurisdiction on the Court. Only the parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause may be parties to an action brought on the basis of Article 272 TFEU.

(see paras 20, 25, 30)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 September 2016 —

Terna v Commission(Case T‑544/15)

‛Action for annulment — Union list of projects of common interest — EU financial aid in two projects in the area of trans-European energy networks — Reduction of the financial aid initially granted following an audit — Preparatory measure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Commission letter regarding as ineligible certain costs incurred in carrying out a project benefiting from EU financial assistance — Act not intended to produce legal effects — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 25-27, 29-31)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter, of 6 July 2015, reducing the financial aid initially granted in the context of two projects (projects 2009-E255/09-ENER/09/TEN-E-S12.564583 and 2007-E 221/07/2007-TREN/07TEN-E-S07.91403) in the area of trans-European energy networks.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
13

In the first place, as regards its financial situation, KK produced its annual accounts (balance sheet and profit-and-loss account) for the last three complete financial years, as lodged with the tax authorities. Those accounts indicate that the company, the products of which are at the developmental stage, did not achieve any turnover in those three complete financial years. The company does not have any assets, other than the expertise of its sole shareholder and its staff, and had liabilities of [confidential] ( 2 ) at the end of the financial year to 31 December 2014. According to the information provided by that company, those liabilities relate to the payment of social security contributions and investments made by the company to make possible the development of its products. The company states that those liabilities are financed from contributions by its sole shareholder, by means of his savings and loans that he had obtained. [omissis]