ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 24 April 2015 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T‑45/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Grant agreement relating to a project concerning a financial instrument for the environment — Recovery order — Application to suspend adoption — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 8, 9)

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 documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 10-12, 15-17)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of 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 paras 20, 21)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, relating to recovery order No 3241405101 issued against the applicant and involving an amount of EUR 540 721.10.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2015 —

Delta Group agroalimentare v Commission

(Case T‑163/15)

‛Action for annulment — Italian market in poultrymeat — Exceptional support measures to resolve specific problems concerning the poultrymeat sector in Italy — Export refunds for poultrymeat destined for certain African countries — Rejection of the applicant’s request for exceptional measures — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(1)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Commission letter rejecting a request for the determination of export refunds in the meat and poultry sector — Not included — Addressee’s action inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1308/2013) (see paras 25-28, 38)

3. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Poultrymeat — Export refunds — No right for a legal person to request measures preventing market disturbances or measures designed to resolve specific problems (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1308/2013, Arts 219(1), and 221) (see paras 29-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 9 February 2015 (Ref. Ares (2015) 528512), sent in reply to the applicant’s request for the adoption of exceptional support measures for the poultrymeat market on the basis of Article 219(1) or of Article 221 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 — 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(3)) (see paras 7, 9)

2. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see para. 8)

3. Application for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings — General reference to documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 156(4)) (see paras 10, 11)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation — Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(2) and (3)) (see paras 14-16, 18, 19, 22)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 20, 21)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 March 2016 —

Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro Daniele v Commission

(Case T‑436/15)

‛Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Request to modify the form of order sought — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings — Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law — Possibility subject to the admissibility of the initial application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 86) (see para. 17)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ — Any act of general scope save for legislative acts — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Concept of implementing measures — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Act comprising implementing measures (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 26, 31, 34)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Action by a plant nursery falling within the category of operators concerned by the decision without being individualised by the application in their regard of the provisions in question — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 36, 38)

5. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Action by an association 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 para. 41)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 15 L 125, p. 36), in so far as the vine (Vitis) is included in Annex I to that decision and Article 9 of the latter prohibits movement within the European Union, within or out of the demarcated areas.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
3.

Application 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 or irremediably alter its position in the market — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 30, 31, 36, 37)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 June 2016 —

Hako v EUIPO (SCRUBMASTER)

(Case T‑629/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SCRUBMASTER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) 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 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 paras 14, 15)

2. 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. 16)

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 SCRUBMASTER (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 21, 22, 37, 46)

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 — Assessment of registrability by the Office — Production of evidence — Not required (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 29)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 35, 36)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 42)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 45)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 2197/2014-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SCRUBMASTER as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T‑364/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of 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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 299, fourth para, TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 156(3), and 161(1)) (see paras 17-19)

2. Application 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 liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 26-30, 32, 34-36, 38, 39)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 432637.97, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241408192 and 3241409206 relating to EUR 155507.97 and EUR 277130 respectively.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T‑364/15 R.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 —

Mitteldeutsche Braunkohlengesellschaft and Others v Commission

(Case T‑750/15)

‛Actions for annulment — State aid — Renewable energy — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German Law concerning renewable energy sources (EEG 2014) — Aid supporting electricity from renewable sources and reduced EEG surcharge for energy-intensive users — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(1)) (see para. 14)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-27, 33, 34)

Re:

ACTION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5081 final of 23 July 2014 concerning State aid scheme SA. 38632 (2014/N) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany (EEG 2014 — Reform of the Renewable Energy Law).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 —

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA

(Case T‑543/15)

‛Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — No direct concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concerning registration of a company as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1), first subpara., of Regulation No 528/2012 — Action brought by companies appearing on that list as suppliers of the said substance — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 528/2012, Art. 95(1), first subpara., and (2)) (see paras 29, 33, 36, 37)

2. 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 — Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concerning registration of a company as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1), first subpara., of Regulation No 528/2012 — Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 528/2012, Art. 95(1), first subpara., and (2)) (see paras 78-80)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea GmbH, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.

3. Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 29 November 2017 — Ferrovial and Others v Commission

(Case T‑252/15 R)

(Application for interim measures — Aid scheme provided for under Spanish tax legislation — Corporate tax provision which enables Spanish undertakings to write off the goodwill resulting from the acquisition of a shareholding in foreign undertakings — New administrative interpretation — Inclusion in the register of direct acquisitions of shareholdings in foreign companies — Application for a stay of execution — 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—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 8, 10, 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court Art. 156(4)) (see para. 14)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cause of the injury not in the contested decision—Lack of any urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 15-21)

Re:

APPLICATION under Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/314 of 15 October 2014 on the State aid SA.35550 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) (ex 12/CP) implemented by Spain Scheme for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions (OJ 2015 L 56, p. 38).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
3

Article 26 of the Order of the Brussels-Capital Region (Belgium) of 19 July 2001 concerning the organisation of the electricity market in the Brussels-Capital Region (Moniteur belge, 17 November 2001, p. 39135) (‘the Electricity Order’) provides as follows: ‘Paragraph 1: The holding of a supply licence issued on the basis of Article 21 shall entail the monthly payment of a charge by the natural or legal person holding the licence, hereinafter called “the person liable”. ... Paragraph 3: The charge shall be calculated on the basis of the power made available to eligible end customers by means of networks, service connections and direct lines of 70 kV or less at consumption sites located in the Brussels-Capital Region. For high-voltage customers, the power made available shall be the power of the connection. The power of connection shall be equal to the maximum power, expressed in kVa, made available under the connection contract. Where the connection contract does not refer to a maximum power or in the event that the power used is greater than the maximum power made available as stated in the connection contract, the connection power shall be equal to the maximum power, expressed in kVa, used during the previous 36-month period, multiplied by 1.2. ... Paragraph 4: The monthly charge shall be set at EUR 0.67 per kVa for high-voltage. … The amount is adjusted annually in accordance with the consumer price index of the Kingdom. ... Paragraph 5: The Government shall lay down measures implementing the present Article. It may, inter alia, require the operator of the distribution network, the operator of the regional transport network and the users of direct lines to provide it with data for the collection of the charge. The Government may entrust the operator of the distribution network with contacting the persons liable by post to require them to pay the charge. Such letters shall, inter alia, state the financial year, the basis for calculating the charge, the rate, the date for payment and the means of paying the charge. The sending or failure to send such a letter shall not, however, prejudice the rights and obligations of persons liable. Paragraph 6: The charge shall be collected and sought according to the rules laid down in Chapter VI of the Order of 23 July 1992 concerning the regional tax on occupiers of buildings and persons holding real rights in certain immovable property. The deadline for the payment of the charge shall be set in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the present Article. …’