ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2016 —

E‑Control v ACER

(Case T‑671/15)

‛Action for annulment — Energy — Regulation (EC) No 713/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Opinion of ACER — National regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity — Central-East Europe region — Compatibility — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment by reference to objective criteria — Opinion of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) finding decisions of the national regulatory authorities approving methods of allocation of cross-border electricity transmission capacity non-compliant — Measure without binding legal effects in regard to those national authorities — Inadmissibility — Opinion containing a definitive legal assessment by ACER — Irrelevant (Arts 263 TFEU and 288, fifth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 713/2009, Art. 7(1), (4) and (5); European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/72, Art. 39(1) to (8)) (see paras 23-25, 29, 43, 44, 46, 48, 59, 60, 64)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-28)

3. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Actionable measure — None — Inadmissibility — Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection — None (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see paras 90, 91)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Opinion No 09/2015 of ACER of 23 September 2015 on the compliance of national regulatory authorities’ decisions approving the methods of allocation of cross-border transmission capacity in the Central-East Europe region with Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 and the Guidelines on the management and allocation of available transfer capacity of interconnections between national systems contained in Annex I thereto.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, Wirtschaftskammer Österreich, Verbund AG and Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne S.A.

3. Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), including those relating to the interim proceedings.
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. 156)

(see paras 11, 13, 14, 43-45)
17

In a situation where the Member State rejects the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission, the Commission is required, if it considers that such measures are still necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU. Once that procedure has been concluded, the Commission is required to adopt one of the decisions provided for under Article 7 of Regulation No 659/1999. The decision adopted as a result of that procedure produces binding legal effects which are capable of affecting the interests of the parties concerned and is therefore a challengeable act, since it concludes the procedure in question and decides definitively whether the measure under review is compatible with the rules applicable to State aid (judgments of 27 November 2003 in Regione Siciliana v Commission, T‑190/00, ECR,EU:T:2003:316, paragraph 45, and of 20 September 2011 in Regione autonoma della Sardegna and Others v Commission, T‑394/08, T‑408/08, T‑453/08 and T‑454/08, ECR, EU:T:2011:493, paragraph 77).
19

For the sake of completeness, it must also be added that the facts of the present case must be distinguished from those which gave rise to the judgment of 24 March 1994, Air France v Commission (T‑3/93, EU:T:1994:36), cited by the applicant. The contested act in the latter case took the form of a statement by the spokesman for the Commissioner responsible for competition matters, by which the Commission declared that it had no powers, pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1), to examine a specifically identified acquisition, and in fact produced legal effects. However, the contested communication in the present case does not contain any decision of that kind and merely expresses the Commission’s opinion, according to which judgment No 328/2015 concerns only the interpretation of Italian law and not EU law, so that that institution did not consider itself able to express an opinion on its impact on the interpretation of the concept of ‘services’ within the meaning of Directive 2006/123. In any event, it must be observed that the applicant does not present any arguments to show that the facts of those two cases are comparable.
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2016 —

Eurofast v Commission

(Case T‑87/16 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Subsidies — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Letters requesting reimbursement of part of the subsidies granted — Debit note — Set-off — Application for suspension of 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 — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 251(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 299 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 9-11)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 18)

3. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Interest in bringing proceedings — Damage having already occurred — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see para. 20)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of being better remedied at the interim stage than in the main proceedings — No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 21)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Burden of proof — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 27-29)

Re:

APPLICATION, essentially, for suspension of operation of the set-off decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 17 December 2015 addressed to the applicant and seeking recovery of EUR 69923.68 owed under a subsidy contract.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2017 —

Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T‑140/16 R II)

(Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery by offsetting of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Fresh application — New facts — No urgency)

Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Dismissal of application—Possibility of bringing a new application—Condition—New facts—Definition

(Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160)

(see paras 7, 8, 13)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 320026.23, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 —

Dröge and Others v Commission

(Case T‑142/16)

(Action for annulment — Declaration of intent and two Commission decisions on the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the European Union and the United States (TTIP) — Right of access of staff of members of national parliaments to certain confidential documents relating to the TTIP negotiations — Measures against which no action may be brought — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Definition—Measures producing binding legal effects—Preparatory measures—Not included (Art. 263, first para., TFEU) (see paras 24-26, 30, 33, 38)

2. Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Identification of the defendant—Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure—Inadmissibility—Limits—Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(c)) (see para. 38)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking (i) annulment of the Commission’s declaration of intent concerning the conclusion of a treaty binding on the contracting parties — the European Union and the United States of America — as regards the arrangements for accessing documents concerning the negotiations on a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), and, in the alternative, a declaration that it is contrary to EU law; (ii) annulment of the Commission’s prior decision concerning the submission of the aforementioned declaration of intent on the authorisation of the agreement and (iii) annulment of the Commission’s oral decision connected with the conclusion of a treaty or a non-binding political agreement with the United States of America on the ‘TTIP access regime’ and classifying that regime as binding under EU law, in so far as it strictly prohibits members of the parliaments of the Member States from being accompanied by vetted staff, including staff of their political group, when viewing documents relating to the TTIP in reading rooms established for that purpose.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2017 —

L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER DRAMA)

(Case T‑183/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER DRAMA — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Word mark MASTER DRAMA and figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 29, 36, 37, 40, 41, 44, 53, 54)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27, 50)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs—Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed—Make-up industry (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 47, 48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2500/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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. 156(4))

(see paras 6-9, 12)
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 August 2017 — Sigma Orionis v Commission

(Case T‑48/16 R)

(Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community (2007-2013) and Horizon 2020 Framework Program for Research and Innovation — Decision to suspend payments and terminate grant contracts following a financial audit — Amounts allegedly due by the Commission in the context of the implementation of the grant contracts — Claim for damages — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency — Balancing of interests)

1. 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. 156(4)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Burden of proof—Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 27, 28, 37)

3. Application for interim measures—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Balancing of all the interests involved—Application for the grant of a provisional measure for immediate payment by the Commission of various sums due under several grant agreements to a company in a financial situation close to bankruptcy—Foreseeable risk of irreversible loss of those sums to the EU budget—Provisional measure sought inappropriate (Arts 268 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU) (see paras 36, 38-42)

4. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Interest in bringing proceedings—Damage having already occurred—Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see para. 44)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and asking for immediate payment by the Commission of various sums under several grant agreements and asking for suspension of the operation of the decision to terminate those agreements.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Immediate application of a new procedural rule—Retrospective effect of a substantive rule—Conditions—Legislation on remission of import duties

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 952/2013, Arts 116 and 288(1) and (2); Council Regulation No 2913/92, Arts 220 and 236)

(see paras 16-19)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission

(Case T‑217/16)

(Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution—Claim for a declaratory judgment—Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 20)

2. Judicial proceedings—Absolute bar to proceeding—To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 24)

3. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Individual concern—Criteria—Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties—Action by an importer of goods having been subject to the anti-dumping measures concerned—Not individually concerned (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 27-33)

4. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU—Any act of general scope other than legislative acts—Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties—Included—Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision—Existence of internal remedies against those measures—Inadmissibility of action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 2913/92) (see paras 34-36)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016 L 52, p. 24).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
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—Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 44)
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 10 October 2017 – Alex v Commission

(Case T-841/16)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Financing of an urban development project — Complaint — Preliminary examination procedure — Decision of the Commission finding no State aid — Action challenging the merits of the Commission’s decision — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment–Actionable measures–Acts challengeable by the author of a complaint denouncing State aid–Commission decision to take no further action on the complaint–Included–Admissibility (Arts 107 TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 263,fourth para. TFEU; Council Regulation No 2015/1589, Art. 4) (see paras 29-42)

2. Actions for annulment–Natural or legal persons–Concept of a ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU–Any act of general scope other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 46-53)

3. Actions for annulment–Natural or legal persons–Measures of direct and individual concern to them–Decision of the Commission finding no State aid without opening the formal examination procedure–Action by a competitor challenging the decision–Market position of the undertaking not substantially affected–Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 55-60, 67-78)

4. Actions for annulment–Jurisdiction of the EU judicature–Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution–Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see paras 80, 83)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting a complaint relating to State aid allegedly unlawfully granted by the French Republic to the Côte-Basque-Adour Conurbation Authority (SA.44409).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the French Republic’s application for leave to intervene.

3. Alex SCI shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T‑891/16)

(Action for failure to act — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Inadmissibility)

Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Inadmissibility

(Art. 265 TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 24(2), second para.)

(see paras 46-50, 55)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to define its position on aid measures concerning the financing, planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.
19

Furthermore, the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 883/2013 provides first of all that, on completion of an investigation by OLAF, a report is to be drawn up, under the authority of the Director-General, which gives an account of, among other things, the procedural steps followed, the facts established and their preliminary classification in law, the estimated financial impact of the facts established and the conclusions of the investigation. The second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 883/2013 also states that ‘[t]he report shall be accompanied by recommendations of the Director-General on whether or not action should be taken’, and Article 11(2) of that regulation states that reports constitute admissible evidence in administrative or judicial proceedings of the Member State in which their use proves necessary, in the same way and under the same conditions as administrative reports drawn up by national administrative inspectors, that they are subject to the same evaluation rules as those applicable to such administrative reports, and that they have the same evidentiary value as such reports. Article 11(3) of the regulation then provides that reports and recommendations drawn up following an external investigation are to be sent to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and, if necessary, to the competent Commission services. Finally, Article 11(6) of Regulation No 883/2013 provides that, at OLAF’s request, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned must, in due time, send to OLAF information on ‘action taken, if any’ on recommendations transmitted as a result of an external investigation.