ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 December 2013 — Istituto di vigilanza dell’Urbe v Commission

(Case T‑579/13 R)

‛Interim measures — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of security guard and reception services at the ‘European Union Houses’ in Rome and Milan — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 6-8)

2. Applications for interim measures — Conditions of admissibility — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 9, 10)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12, 13)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Loss capable of being wholly compensated for in the context of the main action or an action for compensation — Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 16)

Re:

APPLICATION seeking the suspension of the operation of the award decision, adopted on 27 August 2013 by the Commission, relating to a public service contract concerning security guard and reception services at the ‘European Union Houses’ in Rome and Milan (Italy).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

—

Suspension of operation of a measure

—

Action dismissed in the main proceedings

—

Application which has become devoid of purpose

—

No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 1-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2012) 9660 final of 17 December 2012, declaring temporarily compatible with the internal market aid for the rescue of Monte dei Paschi, in the form of recapitalisation conditional on the submission of a restructuring plan within six months [State Aid No SA.35137 (2012/N)].

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — ICT v Commission

(Case T‑243/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Commission decision declaring State aid, consisting in a recapitalisation of banks, compatible with the internal market — Action brought by holders of subordinated bonds expropriated on the nationalisation of banks — No legal effect of the annulment of the decision on the expropriation of the applicants’ rights — Failure to establish an advantage procured by the annulment of the decision — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility (Arts 107 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 14) (see paras 20-30, 35)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision on State aid — Competitor of the undertaking receiving the aid — Right to bring an action — Conditions — No competitive link established by the applicant undertaking — No capacity to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 38-49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1053 final of 22 February 2013 relating to State aid SA.35382 (2013/N) — Kingdom of the Netherlands — Rescue SNS Reaal 2013.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Ms Stefania Adorisio and the 363 other applicants listed in the annex hereto are ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 July 2014 — Kompas MTS v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑315/13)

‛Action for damages — Harm allegedly suffered following the transposition into Austrian law of a directive on the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Labelling of tobacco products — Restrictions on the import of tobacco products — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law’

Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 32, 39, 42)

Re:

ACTION for damages brought on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered following the implementation of quantitative restrictions on the import of tobacco products into Austrian territory following the adoption of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Community law

—

Action against the author of the contested measure

—

Exceptions

—

Measures adopted under delegated powers attributable to the delegating institution

—

Conditions (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the letter of 18 March 2013 of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) concerning certain costs incurred on the occasion of the realisation of a feasibility study concerning the intermodal character of Bergamo-Orio al Serio Airport (Italy) following financial aid granted by the Commission to the Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) and the decision of 23 October 2013 rejecting the observations formulated by ENAC following the said letter of 18 March and confirming the conclusions formulated therein, including those seeking repayment of the sum of EUR 158 517.54.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.

2. The Ente nazionale per l’aviazione civile (ENAC) is ordered to pay the costs.
Under the provisions of Article 268 TFEU and the second and third paragraphs of Article 340 TFEU, in the case of non-contractual liability, the General Court has jurisdiction only in disputes relating to compensation for damage caused by the institutions of the European Union or by its servants in the performance of their duties. Consequently, a claim for compensation that is directed against the European Union and is based on the mere illegality of an act or course of conduct that has not been adopted by an institution of the European Union or by its servants must be rejected as inadmissible.

That applies to a claim for compensation based on the illegality of certain provisions of a protocol of agreement adopted jointly by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and by a Member State and signed by the Member State of the one part and the Vice-President of the Commission on the Commission’s behalf, of the other. It is apparent from Article 13(4) of the ESM Treaty that the Commission is to sign the protocol of agreement only on behalf of the ESM. In that regard, although the ESM Treaty entrusts the Commission and the European Central Bank with certain tasks relating to the implementation of the objectives of that Treaty, the duties conferred on the Commission and the ECB within the ESM Treaty do not entail any power to make decisions of their own, and the activities pursued by those two institutions within the ESM Treaty commit only the ESM. Consequently, it cannot be held that the adoption of the said protocol of agreement originated with the Commission or the ECB.

(see paras 42-47)
1.

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the Commission, addressed to a Member State, withdrawing financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund — Decision not requiring recovery of the sums paid from the final beneficiaries — No discretion of the Member State concerned as to recovery of the said amount arising from national law — Action brought by the entity responsible for implementing the project concerned — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 35, 36, 40-43, 48-51, 68)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 January 2015 — Vakoma v OHIM — VACOM (VAKOMA)

(Case T‑535/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark VAKOMA — Earlier Community word mark VACOM — Application instituting proceedings — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 17-21)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2013 (Case R 908/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between VACOM Vakuum Komponenten & Messtechnik GmbH and Vakoma GmbH.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

14 July 2014

Case T‑356/13 P

Giorgio Lebedef

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 in Lebedef v Commission (F‑56/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:49), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Giorgio Lebedef is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Actions brought by officials — Plea of illegality — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — Disciplinary decision that has become final, adopted before the contested disciplinary decision — Not included

(Arts 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

In an action against a decision imposing a disciplinary measure on an official, the substance of a plea of illegality against a disciplinary decision taken earlier may not be considered by the Civil Service Tribunal where the latter decision does not form the legal basis of the decision which is being contested and where the official is entitled to bring an action against that first disciplinary decision in accordance with and within the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

Article 277 TFEU gives expression to a general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to challenge indirectly, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a measure against which it may bring an action, the validity of a previous act of the institutions which forms the legal basis of the decision which is being contested, if that party was not entitled under Article 263 TFEU to bring a direct action challenging that act by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to seek its annulment.

In that regard, the time-limits for lodging complaints and bringing proceedings are a matter of public policy and are not subject to the discretion of the parties or the Court, since they were established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain. Allowing an official to challenge the first disciplinary decision indirectly, in an action against the second disciplinary decision, would be impossible to reconcile with the principles governing the legal remedies established by the Staff Regulations and would jeopardise the stability of that system and the principle of legal certainty upon which it is based.

(see paras 23, 24, 31, 32)

See:

judgments of 6 March 1979 in Simmenthal v Commission, 92/78, ECR, EU:C:1979:53, para. 39; and of 19 January 1984 in Andersen and Others v Parliament, 262/80, ECR, EU:C:1984:18, para. 6

order of 21 June 2010 in Meister v OHIM, T‑284/09 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2010:246, para. 25 and the case-law cited therein
31

According to the case-law, a decision to initiate the formal examination procedure in relation to a measure in the course of implementation and classified by the Commission as new aid necessarily alters the legal implications of the measure under consideration and the legal position of the recipient firms, particularly as regards the continued implementation of the measure. As is clear from the case-law and as also acknowledged by the Commission, that is plainly the case not only where a measure in the course of implementation is regarded by the authorities of the Member State concerned as existing aid, but also where the authorities take the view that the measure in question does not constitute State aid (see, to that effect, judgments in Tirrenia, paragraph 29 above, EU:C:2001:528, paragraphs 57 to 59; Deutsche Post v Commission, paragraph 29 above, EU:C:2013:695, paragraph 52; and Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission, paragraph 29 above, EU:T:2002:259, paragraphs 33 and 34).
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Walter Klein v Commission

(Case T‑297/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Walter Klein v Commission

(Case T‑297/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 7, 8)

2. Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Insufficient explanation of the grounds constituting a prima facie case — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 9-11, 14-16)

3. Application for interim measures — Community law — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Main action seeking annulment of the prohibition on Members of the European Parliament holding a dual mandate — Action out of time — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Act concerning election of representatives to the assembly by direct universal suffrage, Art. 7(2), first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1); Council Decision 2002/772) (see paras 18-21)

4. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Measures incompatible with the allocation of powers between institutions — Application seeking to obtain an injunction addressed to an institution or a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 263 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see para. 22)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures, essentially to permit the applicant to be officially sworn in as a member of the European Parliament, while continuing to hold the office of Member of the Netherlands Parliament.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



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 — 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 10-12)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Community law — Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought — Application seeking suspension of operation of the debit note addressed to a co-contractor — Suspension incapable of altering the applicant’s situation — No legal interest in bringing proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 16-18, 21)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the suspension of operation of a debit note addressed to the applicant within the framework of a grant agreement and of any other relevant act.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
If the text transmitted by e-mail does not fulfil the conditions of legal certainty imposed by Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, the date of transmission of the copy of the application by fax or by e-mail cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, and only the date of lodgment of the signed original will be taken into consideration for such purposes.

Moreover, for lodgment of a procedural act to be valid, Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, governing the possibility of considering the date of transmission by e‑mail of a copy of the signed original as the date of lodgment of an application, requires the party’s representative to sign the original of the application by hand before transmitting it by e-mail and to lodge that original at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter. In these circumstances, should it later appear that the signed original of the pleading physically lodged at the Registry within 10 days of being transmitted by e-mail does not bear, at the very least, the same signature as the one appearing on the document transmitted by e-mail, that element will suffice for considering the two documents to be different, even if the signatures have indeed been appended by the same person.

(see paras 14, 15)