ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Klemme v Commission

(Case T‑294/14 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 —

Klemme v Commission

(Case T‑294/14 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.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

10 April 2014

Case T‑57/14 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 in Case F‑94/12 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account in order to determine compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an appeal

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days after receipt of the fax.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original of the appeal lodged subsequently, the date of transmission of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with the time-limit for bringing an appeal. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

Judgment of 29 November 2011 in T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 3 October 2012 in T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission

(Case T‑301/14 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 —

Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission

(Case T‑301/14 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.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 January 2015 — Marcuccio v European Union

(Case T‑409/14)

‛Actions for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Actions for damages — Reasonable time — Representation of the Union — Dismissal of the objection of inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Court of Justice not replying to a claim for compensation for excessive duration of legal proceedings — Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 17-19, 21, 23)

2. European Union — Representation before the EU judicature — Action for compensation against the EU in respect of damage allegedly suffered through unreasonable duration of the procedure before the General Court — Representation of the European Union by the Court of Justice (Arts 13 TEU, 17(1) TEU and 19 TEU; Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU, 335 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 26, 27, 30-32, 41-44)

3. Judicial proceedings — Division of jurisdiction between the various courts of the European Union — Claim for compensation for excessive duration of the court proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court allegedly in default to rule in another judgment formation — Representation of the European Union, the defendant, by the Court of Justice — Irrelevant (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU) (see paras 58-61, 64-66)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision whereby the Court of Justice dismissed a claim for compensation by reason of allegedly unreasonable duration of legal proceedings, and, second, action for compensation in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings in Cases T‑236/02, C‑59/06 P and C‑617/11 P.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of the alleged decision whereby the Court of Justice is said to have dismissed the claim of Mr Luigi Marcuccio submitted on 22 January 2014 seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by him by reason of the allegedly unreasonable duration of the proceedings in Cases T‑236/02, C‑59/06 P and C‑617/11 P.

2. The objection of inadmissibility is dismissed as to the remainder.
In a case which has been suspended pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations, an implied decision rejecting a complaint signifies the end of the suspension of the proceedings. From that date, the defendant has, pursuant to Article 39 and Article 100(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, a period of two months, plus a single period of ten days, in which to lodge a defence.

The obligation to state the reasons on which decisions are based is a fundamental principle of Union law. Accordingly, the purpose of the requirement laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and also contained in the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is to enable the Tribunal to review the legality of decisions adversely affecting officials and to provide those concerned with sufficient information to assess whether those decisions are well founded or subject to a defect enabling their legality to be challenged. It follows that the statement of reasons must in principle be notified to the person concerned at the same time as the decision adversely affecting him.

However, in so far as a decision was adopted in circumstances known to the official concerned, it cannot be regarded as being vitiated by a total absence of a statement of reasons, but merely by an inadequate statement of reasons. An inadequate statement of reasons provided in the course of the pre-litigation procedure is not in itself such as to justify annulment of the decision adopted where additional information is provided by the administration during the proceedings.

(see paras 34, 35)

Judgment of 19 November 1998 in Parliament v Gaspari, C‑316/97 P, ECR, EU:C:1998:558, para. 29

Judgments of 12 December 2002 in Morello v Commission, T‑164/00, ECR-SC, EU:T:2002:312, para. 36; 3 February 2005 in Heurtaux v Commission, T‑172/03, ECR-SC, EU:T:2005:34, para. 44, and 10 October 2014 in EMA v BU, T‑444/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:865, para. 37
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 November 2015 —

EREF v Commission

(Case T‑694/14)

‛Action for annulment — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Locus standi — Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members — Admissibility — Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 13, 14)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Locus standi — Whether directly concerned — Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 15-20)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Locus standi — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Action brought by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members — Members not directly affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Notice 2014/C 200/01) (see paras 21-38)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Communication from the Commission of 28 June 2014, entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), concerning the assessment criteria of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid for energy from renewable sources.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter informally requesting a Member State to make traditional own resources available to the EU budget — Not included — Letter not producing binding legal effects — Application inadmissible

(Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1150/2000; Council Decision 2007/436)

2. 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))

Summary

1. In actions for annulment brought by Member States or institutions, any measures adopted by the institutions, whatever their form, which are intended to have binding legal effects are regarded as acts open to challenge, for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU.

That is not the case with a letter from the Commission informally requesting a Member State to place traditional own resources at the disposal of the EU budget. Application of EU provisions on the matter of making available own resources falls within the responsibility of the Member States. No provision of Decision 2007/436 or Regulation No 1150/2000 gives the Commission the power to take decisions concerning their interpretation. Moreover, the Commission may not prejudice the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to decide whether the behaviour of a Member State is compatible with Regulation No 1150/2000. The Commission merely has the option, which is always open to it, of expressing an opinion which is in no circumstances binding on the national authorities.

Furthermore, since the sole purpose of the pre-litigation phase of the infringement procedure under Article 258 TFEU is to enable the Member State to comply of its own accord with the requirements of the Treaty or, as the case may be, to give it the opportunity to justify its position, none of the acts adopted by the Commission in that context, including a letter in which the Commission informally requests a Member State to make available to the budget of the Union its traditional own resources, has binding effect.

(see paras 25, 34, 38, 40, 43, 46, 48)

2. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 29-35)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2016 —

Larymnis Larko v Commission

(Case T‑575/14)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — No direct interest of a creditor claiming prejudice to his economic and financial interests — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17, 18, 23-26)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Admissibility criteria — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.34572 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

Operative part

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

25 September 2015

Desislava Kolarova

v

Research Executive Agency (REA)

‛Appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — REA — Powers conferred on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment — Delegation to the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) — Appeal directed against the delegating institution — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2014 in Kolarova v REA (Case F‑88/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:58), and seeking, inter alia, to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Desislava Kolarova is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the Research Executive Agency (REA) on the appeal.

Summary
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

7 July 2014

Case T‑39/14 P

Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira

v

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

(Appeal — Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Out of time — Appeal clearly inadmissible)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 October 2013 in Gomes Moreira v ECDC (F‑80/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:159), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Joaquim Paulo Gomes Moreira is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Appeal — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — To be considered of the EU Court’s own motion

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2))

Under the first paragraph of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal may be brought before the General Court, within two months of notification of the decision appealed against, against final decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal and decisions of that Tribunal disposing of the substantive issues in part only or disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of jurisdiction or inadmissibility. In this respect, in accordance with Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that procedural time-limit is to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days. Procedural time-limits and extensions on account of distance are not separate, so that when the procedural time-limit ends, it must be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.

Furthermore, the time-limit for bringing proceedings is a matter of public policy, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and it is for the EU Court to ascertain of its own motion whether it has been complied with.

(see paras 5, 6)

See:

order of 15 May 1991 in Emsland-Stärke v Commission, C‑122/90, ECR, EU:C:1991:209, para. 9; and judgment of 23 January 1997 in Coen, C‑246/95, ECR, EU:C:1997:33, para. 21

judgment of 18 September 1997 in Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission, T‑121/96 and T‑151/96, ECR, EU:T:1997:132, paras 38 and 39; orders of 20 November 1997 in Horeca-Wallonie v Commission, T‑85/97, ECR, EU:T:1997:180, paras 25 and 26, and 15 July 2011 in College of staff representatives of the EIB and Others v Bömcke, T‑213/11 P(I), ECR-SC, EU:T:2011:397, para. 11
Case T‑381/14

Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka

v

Council of the European Union

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 10 June 2016

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Period starting to run as from the fourteenth day following that publication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1); Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014)

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Ambit of the review — Proof the measure well-founded — Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned well-founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014)