ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

9 September 2008

Case T-143/08

Luigi Marcuccio

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Social security – Refusal of the application for reimbursement of 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant)

Application: for, in particular, annulment of the decisions of the office responsible for settling claims of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities refusing to pay 100% of certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant or to reimburse the expenses for a medical visit in accordance with the rules applicable to consultations of medical experts, and an application that the Commission be ordered to pay certain medical expenses for the applicant.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. The parties are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Medical expenses – Serious illness – Reimbursement at 100% – Conditions

(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on Sickness Insurance, Art. 28 and Annex I, Section IV)

The reimbursement of medical expenses at 100% under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations presupposes that the illness concerned is regarded as one of the illnesses expressly referred to in that provision, or that the appointing authority recognises the illness as being of a comparable seriousness to the illnesses referred to in that provision. To that end, it is manifestly for the official concerned to state which is the illness in question and to produce supporting documents. Under Article 28 of the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities applications for reimbursement of expenses must be accompanied by original supporting documents, and according to Section IV of Annex I to those Rules applications to have an illness recognised as of a comparable seriousness to the four illnesses referred to in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations must be accompanied by a report from the doctor treating the official concerned.

Where an application does not contain any new factor justifying the reimbursement at 100% of the medical expenses incurred by the official in question, the administration’s silence following that application does not in any way alter his legal situation resulting from the implied decision rejecting an earlier application in which he made that claim known to the administration, and therefore does not constitute an act adversely affecting him within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(see paras 37, 39, 41)
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

22 June 2009

Case T-371/08 P

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Decision to appoint the appellant’s superior – Internal competition – Staff Committee elections – Decision not to promote the appellant in 2006 – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

Appeal: brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F‑5/07 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I‑A-1-0000 and II‑A-1-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Bart Nijs is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

Summary

1. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Assessment in the light of the rules in force when the application was submitted

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 76)

2. Procedure – Action before the Civil Service Tribunal – Possibility of a second exchange of pleadings – Civil Service Tribunal’s discretion

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 7(3))

1. Although the rule laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal that the Tribunal may, by way of an order, dismiss an action which is manifestly bound to fail is a procedural rule which, as such, applies to all proceedings pending at the time when it enters into force, the same is not true of rules on the basis of which the Tribunal may, under that article, regard an action as manifestly inadmissible, and which may only be those applicable on the date when the action is brought.

In applying, simultaneously, Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, which lay down identical rules, to a case brought before the latter Rules came into force, the Civil Service Tribunal is merely making use of that possibility. Since the text of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance were published on a date well before the case was brought, an applicant cannot reasonably claim that he was not in a position to know, at the time when he brought his action, the rules on the basis of which his action was dismissed.

Furthermore, since the Rules of Procedure were published in the Official Journal, everyone is deemed to be aware of them.

(see paras 20, 28)

See: 161/88 Binder [1989] ECR 2415, para. 19

2. It is clear from Article 7(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice that the Civil Service Tribunal is not under any obligation to ask the parties to conduct a second exchange of pleadings. The decision to request such an exchange falls within the discretion of the Tribunal, which it exercises according to its own need for information. Consequently, the wording of that provision cannot create a legitimate expectation for the applicant that he will be able to submit a second pleading after the application.

(see para. 27)
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – Säveltäjäin Tekijänoikeustoimisto Teosto v Commission

(Case T-401/08 R)

Interim measures – Commission decision ordering the termination of a concerted practice in relation to the collective protection of copyright – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-24)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 34-37, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision C(2008) 3435 final of the Commission of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC), to the extent that the applicant is affected.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 17 September 2009 – Avaessian Avaki and Others v People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran and Others

(Case T-284/08 INTP)

Procedure – Third-party proceedings – Failure of third party to take part in the original case – No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Third party proceedings – Conditions for admissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 42 and 53; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 24(6) and 123(1)) (see paras 14-17)

Re:

APPLICATION by a third party to have the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2008 in Case T-284/08 People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council [2008] ECR II‑3487 set aside.

Operative part

1. The application of the third party is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The third parties are ordered to pay their own costs as well as the costs of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2012 —

Grasso v Commission



(Case T‑319/08)

Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting of TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Measure of general scope — Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 18‑23, 25‑27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned — Not permissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45°W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions for granting

–

Application to extend a measure suspending operation of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 4, 11-15

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the extension of the suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The suspension of operation laid down in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the General Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T‑95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 30 November 2010, but shall not extend beyond the date of delivery of the decision in the main proceedings or beyond the date of the formal conclusion of the accelerated procedure, initiated with regard to napropamide, under Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 33/2008 of 17 January 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards a regular and an accelerated procedure for the assessment of active substances which were part of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of that directive but have not been included in its Annex I (OJ 2008 L 15, p. 5).

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Z v Commission

(Case T-173/09 R)

‛Interim measures — Access by a third party concerned to a Commission decision imposing a fine but not yet published — Application for interim measures — No need to adjudicate — No urgency’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17, 18, 24)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Main head of damage not materialising (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

Re:

APPLICATION for access to the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/G/39.406 — Marine hoses) and deletion of the applicant’s name from the text of that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed insofar as it has not already become devoid of purpose.

2. This order annuls and replaces the order of 6 May 2009.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 34-36)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs to be taken into account (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 47-48)

4. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Lodging of an additional pleading to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the procedure for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/39.396 – Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Concept

–

Measures producing binding legal effects

–

Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure

–

Reply of the Commission to an application for confirmation of the scope of a decision declaring State aid compatible with the common market

–

Confirmatory decision

–

Not included (Arts 87 EC, 88 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 24-29, 32-37, 40, 44-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the Commission of 9 June 2009, relating to the aid granted to RapidEye AG by the German authorities for the creation of a satellite-based geo-information services system (State Aid CP 183/2009 – Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 – N 416/2002)).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. RapidEye AG is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25-27, 29-30)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Definition of position within the meaning of Article 232, second para., EC – Concept – Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure – Included – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 37-39, 41)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 4 July 2012 — ICO Satellite v Commission

(Case T-350/09)

‛Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Absence of excusable error — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 26-29, 31)

2. Procedure — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Excusable error — Concept (see paras 39, 41, 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. ICO Satellite Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 January 2010 – Química Atlântica v Commission

(Case T-71/09)

Action for failure to act – Adoption of a position – Action for compensation – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure remedied before commencement of proceedings – Subject-matter of the action ceasing to exist – No need to adjudicate (see paras 28-31)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35-39)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to take the measures necessary to harmonise the tariff heading criteria for dicalcium phosphate, and an application for reimbursement of the difference between the amounts that the applicant has had to pay since 1995 by way of customs duties and those which would have been payable had the rate for Tariff Code 28 35 25 90 been applied to the importation of dicalcium phosphate from Tunisia or an indemnity of an equivalent amount.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene of Timab Ibérica SL.
2

Article 21 of Regulation No 139/2004 provides as follows: ‘Application of the Regulation and jurisdiction 1. This Regulation alone shall apply to concentrations as defined in Article 3, and Council Regulations (EC) No 1/2003, (EEC) No 1017/68, (EEC) No 4056/86 and (EEC) No 3975/87 shall not apply, except in relation to joint ventures that do not have a Community dimension and which have as their object or effect the coordination of the competitive behaviour of undertakings that remain independent. 2. Subject to review by the Court of Justice, the Commission shall have sole jurisdiction to take the decisions provided for in this Regulation. 3. No Member State shall apply its national legislation on competition to any concentration that has a Community dimension. The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to any Member State’s power to carry out any enquiries necessary for the application of Articles 4(4), 9(2) or after referral, pursuant to Article 9(3), first subparagraph, indent (b), or Article 9(5), to take the measures strictly necessary for the application of Article 9(8). 4. Notwithstanding paragraphs 2 and 3, Member States may take appropriate measures to protect legitimate interests other than those taken into consideration by this Regulation and compatible with the general principles and other provisions of Community law. Public security, plurality of the media and prudential rules shall be regarded as legitimate interests within the meaning of the first subparagraph. Any other public interest must be communicated to the Commission by the Member State concerned and shall be recognised by the Commission after an assessment of its compatibility with the general principles and other provisions of Community law before the measures referred to above may be taken. The Commission shall inform the Member State concerned of its decision within 25 working days of that communication.’
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – Hansen v Commission

(Case T-6/09)

Action for damages – Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Injury/damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see para. 22)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Not constituting unlawfulness (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC; Art. 141 EA) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011 – RapidEye v Commission

(Case T-330/09)

Action for annulment – State aid – Aid granted by the German authorities pursuant to the multi-sectoral framework on regional aid – Satellite-based geo-information services system project – Request for confirmation of the scope of a decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market – Commission’s response – Measure not open to appeal – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure – Reply of the Commission to an application for confirmation of the scope of a decision declaring State aid compatible with the common market – Confirmatory decision – Not included (Arts 87 EC, 88 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 24-29, 32-37, 40, 44-47)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter from the Commission of 9 June 2009, relating to the aid granted to RapidEye AG by the German authorities for the creation of a satellite-based geo-information services system (State Aid CP 183/2009 – Germany, RapidEye AG (ex-post monitoring MSR 1998 – N 416/2002)).

Operative part

1.The action is dismissed as inadmissible.