ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 April 2020 –

Gerber v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑326/19)

(Action for annulment – Customs territory of the European Union – Regulation (EU) 2019/474 – Directive (EU) 2019/475 – Inclusion of the municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility)

1. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative acts and regulatory acts – Distinguishing criteria – Procedure for the adoption of the act (Arts 289(1) and (3) and 294 TFEU) (see para. 43)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure general in character – Conditions – Regulation including a municipality and the waters of a Member State in the Customs territory of the Union – Action brought by a resident of that municipality – No restricted category of economic operators – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2019/474) (see paras 49-55, 58-60)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity – Obligation on national courts to apply national procedural rules in such a way as to allow the legality of EU measures to be challenged (Arts 4(3) and 19(1), second para. TEU; Arts 263, 267 and 277 TFEU) (see paras 65, 66)

4. Action for annulment – Judgment annulling a measure – Effects – Obligation to implement (Arts 264 and 266 TFEU) (see para. 77)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Regulation (EU) 2019/474 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 38), in so far as concerns the part relating to the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union; second, application under Article 264 TFEU seeking a declaration that Council Directive (EU) 2019/475 of 18 February 2019 amending Directives 2006/112/EC and 2008/118/EC as regards the inclusion of the Italian municipality of Campione d’Italia and the Italian waters of Lake Lugano in the customs territory of the Union and in the territorial application of Directive 2008/118/EC (OJ 2019 L 83, p. 42) has no effect; and, third, application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the grant of interim measures suspending the application of Regulation 2019/474, Directive 2019/475 and of any other implementing measure relating thereto.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Commission and the Italian Republic.

3. Mr Tibor Gerber shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the interim proceedings.
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 July 2020 –

Wagenknecht v European Council

(Case T‑715/19 R)

(Application for interim measures – Dismissal of the main action – No need to adjudicate)

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Action dismissed in the main proceedings – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 278 TFEU)

(see paras 3-6)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 279 TFEU seeking the grant, in relation to the European Council, of a provisional measure consisting of the inclusion, in the first conclusions which the Council adopts after publication of that provisional measure, of a text declaring that it is prohibited for any legal person of which Mr Andrej Babiš, who, as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, is the representative of the Czech Republic in the European Council, has been a beneficial owner or one of the beneficial owners, or, with respect to such a legal person, has family ties with any beneficial owner thereof or has any other personal, professional or commercial connection with such an owner, on 2 August 2018 or at any time since that date during his active mandate as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, to receive, under the regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027, funds taken from the current or future European budget, in particular in the form of direct aid to agriculture and of any disbursement, expenditure, guarantee or other advantage under that framework.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2020 – Sharpston v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T‑180/20)

(Action for annulment – Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union – Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice – Act not open to challenge – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Action brought against the declaration of the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States – Inadmissibility

(Arts 253(1), 256 and 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51)

(see paras 29-35)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFUE seeking partial annulment of the Declaration by the Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, of 29 January 2020.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Interim relief – 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 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 13, 14, 24)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 –

IM v EIB and EIF

(Case T‑80/20)

(Action for annulment – Institutional law – Post of Director-General of the EIF – Rejection of the applicant’s candidature – Appointment of another candidate – No legal interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Action 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. 15)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action capable of procuring a benefit for the party bringing it – Action against the appointment of another candidate to a post – Applicant not eligible for appointment – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EIF of 11 December 2019 appointing a new Director-General of the EIF.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 June 2021 –

TrekStor v EUIPO – Zagg (Protective cover for computer hardware)

(Case T‑512/20)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a protective cover for computer hardware – Ground for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Request that witnesses be heard – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Law of the Member State serving to define the procedures for acquiring and proving copyright (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(iii)) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a protective cover for computer hardware (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 (Case R 294/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor and Zagg.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment – Time limits – Decision made in the context of the compliance check of the registration dossier for the substance 2-ethylhexyl salicylate – Concept of publication – Publication of the decision on the website of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 59; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 59(10))

(see paras 23-25)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject matter of the dispute – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

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

(see para. 16)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 December 2021 –

Alessio and Others v ECB

(Case T‑620/20)

(Action for annulment – Economic and monetary union – Banking union – Recovery and resolution of credit institutions – Early intervention measures – Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration – Subsequent extension decisions – Time limit for bringing proceedings – Delay – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Time limits – Point from which time starts to run – Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant – Precise knowledge of the content and reasons – Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU)

(see paras 39, 40, 42-44, 46-48, 81-84)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the ECB’s decision of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and, secondly, of its decision of 29 March 2019, extending the period of the temporary administration, and of the subsequent extension decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

3. Mr Roberto Alessio and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2022 –

FC v EASO

(Case T‑148/20) ( 1 )

(Action for annulment – Civil service – Members of the temporary staff – Refusal to provide a certificate of good character – Refusal to accept a withdrawal of the resignation – Purely confirmatory act – Time limit for complaints – Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure – Inadmissibility – Action for damages – Close link with the claim for annulment – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Effect – Disputed measure referred to the Court – Exception – Decision not confirmatory in character – Account taken of the reasoning therein (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 32-36)

2. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Mandatory – Time-barred – Reopening – Condition – New and material fact – Concept – Act confirming an earlier decision – Not included (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 45-47, 49, 50, 68, 69, 78, 84-86)

3. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Inadequate statement of reasons – Irrelevant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 25, second para., 90 and 91) (see paras 48, 66, 77)

4. Actions brought by officials – No prior administrative complaint – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 92-94)

5. Actions brought by officials – Action for damages brought without a pre-litigation procedure in accordance with the Staff Regulations – Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 105-107, 112-116)

6. Actions brought by officials – Application for damages linked to an application for annulment – Dismissal of application for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 109-111)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. FC shall pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
2.

Facebook Ireland shall identify the documents containing the data referred to in point 1 and transmit them to the Commission on a separate electronic medium. Those documents shall then be placed in a virtual data room which shall be accessible to as limited a number as possible of members of the team responsible for the investigation, in the presence (virtual or physical) of an equivalent number of Facebook Ireland’s lawyers. The members of the team responsible for the investigation shall examine and select the documents in question, while giving Facebook Ireland’s lawyers the opportunity to comment on them before the documents considered relevant are placed on the file. In the event of disagreement as to the classification of a document, Facebook Ireland’s lawyers shall have the right to explain the reasons for their disagreement. In the event of continuing disagreement, Facebook Ireland may ask the Director for Information, Communication and Media at the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition to resolve the disagreement.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 November 2021 –

ExxonMobil Production Deutschland v Commission

(Case T‑731/20)

(Action for annulment – Environment – Directive 2003/87/EC – Greenhouse gases – Allocation of emission allowances – Request to transfer emission certificates to Germany – Request made in the context of national proceedings for interim relief aimed at guaranteeing the effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure in Case C‑126/20 – Commission refusal decision – Locus standi – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure to act – Concept – Measure not considered satisfactory – Measure not considered satisfactory – Precluded (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 23, 28, 29)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Acts intended to have legal effects – Position adopted by the Commission on a request of a national authority – Included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 30)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Commission decision addressed to a national authority, refusing to transfer to it additional greenhouse gas emission allowances until the final outcome of national court proceedings – Action brought by the applicant in the national court proceedings – Decision not producing direct effects on that applicant’s legal position – National authority not responsible for the implementation of that decision when it was adopted – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 33, 34, 38, 40-55)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Conditions cumulative in nature – Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 35)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 8 December 2020 refusing the request of the Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle (German Emissions Trading Authority) to transfer, as a protective measure, to the national holding account of the Federal Republic of Germany or, in the alternative, to the applicant’s operator holding account, by 31 December 2020 at the latest, a number of greenhouse gas emission allowances corresponding to the number of additional allowances covered by the application filed by the applicant with the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court, Berlin, Germany) for the free allocation of emission allowances for the third greenhouse gas emission allowance trading period.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 December 2021 –

McCord v Commission

(Cases T‑161/21 and T‑161/21 AJ I)

(Action for annulment – Action for failure to act – Draft Commission regulation making the exportation of certain products outside the European Union subject to the production of an export authorisation – Commission proposal to make the exportation of COVID-19 vaccines to Northern Ireland subject to the production of an export authorisation pursuant to Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community – Absence of a published policy of the circumstances in which the European Union will trigger Article 16 of that protocol – Manifest inadmissibility in part – Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Precluded – Draft Commission regulation making the exportation of certain products outside the European Union subject to the production of an export authorisation – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland) (see paras 21-32)

2. Actions for failure to act – Commission under an obligation to act – No obligation to adopt and publish a policy on the circumstances of triggering Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Art. 265 TFEU; Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland) (see paras 38-44)

3. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Directions issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 46)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the draft Commission regulation of 29 January 2021 intended, inter alia, to make the exportation of COVID-19 vaccines to Northern Ireland subject to the production of an export authorisation pursuant to Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7), and of the Commission’s decision not to have published a policy on the circumstances in which it will trigger Article 16 of that protocol and, secondly, application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt and publish such a policy.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2021 –

Troy Chemical Company and Troy v Commission

(Case T‑297/21 R)

(Interim measures – Biocidal products – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 – Approval of carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 (film preservatives) and 10 (masonry preservatives) – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 24, 25, 35)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Serious nature of the harm – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Assessment in the light of the size and turnover of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Activity in highly regulated markets – Examination of the circumstances of each case (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 34, 36, 48)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Irreparable alteration in market share – Taking into account of the risk of loss of market shares in non-member countries – Not included (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 45, 46)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268, 278, 279 and 340 TFEU) (see para. 58)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174), and, second, the grant of any other interim measures which the General Court considers appropriate.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
EU institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 – Confirmatory application for access – Confirmatory application submitted prematurely – Not permissible

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 7 and 8)

(see paras 23, 27, 29-32)
Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156)

(see paras 8-11)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 April 2022 –

SS and ST v Frontex

(Case T‑282/21)

(Actions for failure to act – Right to asylum – Invitation to act – Position taken by Frontex – Inadmissibility)

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

(Art. 265, second para., TFEU)

(see para. 22)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.