ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 30 November 2021 — Roos and Others v Parliament

(Case T-710/21 R)

(Interim relief - Members of the European Parliament - Conditions of access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work related to the health crisis - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of any urgency)

(2022/C 73/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Robert Roos (Poortugaal, Netherlands), Anne-Sophie Pelletier (Ixelles, Belgium), Francesca Donato (Palermo, Italy), Virginie Joron (Durningen, France) and IC (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and A.-M. Dumbrăvan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed,

2. The order of 5 November 2021, Roos and Others v Parliament (T-710/21 R) is revoked.
Order of the General Court of 9 November 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-136/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’ - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - No direct concern - No individual concern - Non-regulatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 24/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 37 other applicants whose names are set out in Annex I to the order (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and A. Sipos, as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 94 (final) of 6 January 2021, granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna — COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine (nucleoside-modified)’, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by TN, by TF, TG, TH and TI, by Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, by Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and by Moderna Biotech Spain SL.

3. Ms Heidi Amort and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex I are ordered to pay the costs.

4. TN, TF, TG, TH and TI, Jean Gouezo and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Stefano Del Gaudio and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, TR and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, VH and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, Dieter Achtschin and the other persons whose names are set out in Annex II, and Moderna Biotech Spain shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 148, 26.4.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — Civitta Eesti v Commission

(Case T-665/21) (1)

(2022/C 148/66)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 490, 6.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 4 January 2022 — Vivostore v EUIPO — Linda (VIVO LIFE)

(Case T-540/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 119/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vivostore Ltd (Winscombe, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Urek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Linda AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1587/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Linda and Vivostore.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Vivostore and Linda AG shall bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 21 March 2022 — Kalypso Media Group v EUIPO (COMMANDOS)

(Case T-550/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 207/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kalypso Media Group GmbH (Worms, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2021 (Case R 1864/2020-2) relating to an application for registration of the word sign COMMANDOS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Kalypso Media Group GmbH.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 15 February 2022 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission

(Case T-425/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Financial provisions - EU programme on promoting safer use of the internet - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 171/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and S. Romoli, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2020) 7415 final of 21 October 2020 amending Implementing Decision C(2018) 6712 on the selection and award of grants under the Connecting Europe Facility in the sector of Telecommunication.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. eSlovensko Bratislava is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — Bloom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-645/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 - European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund - Financial support granted under shared management with the Member States - Ineligible operations or expenditure - Derogations from ineligibility - Association for the protection of the marine environment - Legislative act - No individual concern - No direct concern - Right to effective judicial protection - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 266/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bloom (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Saynac and L. Chovet-Ballester, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: G. Ricci and I. Terwinghe, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and A. Nowak-Salles, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 (OJ 2021 L 247, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

3. Bloom shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

4. The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.

(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 31 March 2022 — lastminute foundation v EUIPO — Scai Comunicazione (B Heroes)

(Case T-587/21) (1)

(2022/C 222/68)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 462, 15.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (ART CLASS)

(Case T-637/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2021 (Case R 1597/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The a.r.t. company b&s and Target Brands.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 5 May 2022 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO — (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-248/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2021 (Case R 1699/2020-2), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark BACK-2-NATURE.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Order of the General Court of 25 July 2022 — Armadora Parleros v Commission

(Case T-254/21) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common fisheries policy - Failure by the Commission to exercise its powers of control covered by the applicable legislation - Engine power of boats - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Damage - Causal link - Limitation period - Action manifestly inadmissible)

(2022/C 359/89)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armadora Parleros, SL (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Morales Puerta and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 268 TFEU, the applicant seeks compensation for damage caused to it by the loss of profit which it suffered as a result of an engine failure of its fishing vessel, the Vianto Tercero, in 2005. It attributes the origin of that engine failure to defective supervision by the Commission of the monitoring by the Kingdom of Spain of the rules of the common fisheries policy in the North-West Cantabrian sea fisheries zone. According to the applicant, the engine failure was caused by overuse of the engine due to the applicant’s exposure to unfair competition from fishing vessels with an engine power in excess of the permitted power.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Armadora Parleros SL shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.
Order of the General Court of 9 June 2022 — Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case T-493/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance - Non-Member State - National public procurement - Termination of the contract by the contracting authority - Request for enforcement by the contracting authority of a bank guarantee - Countersignature by the Head of the EU Delegation in the non-Member State - Lack of jurisdiction)

(2022/C 303/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and D. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and T. Van Noyen, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the countersignature affixed on 29 April 2021 by the Delegation of the European Union in Ankara (Turkey) to the letter of enforcement of the bank guarantee of the Turkish Ministry of Science, Industry and Technology.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 452, 8.11.2021.
Order of the General Court of 25 October 2022 — WO v European Public Prosecutor’s Office

(Case T-603/21) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Candidates nominated by [confidential] - Refusal by the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to appoint the applicant - No dispute between the Union and one of its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations and the CEOS - Article 270 TFEU - Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

(2023/C 15/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WO (represented by V. Vitkovskis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (represented by L. De Matteis and J. Castillo García, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision No 28/2021 of the College of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 21 April 2021 rejecting a candidate for the position of European Delegated Prosecutor of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in [confidential].

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. WO shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Order of the General Court of 13 September 2022 — Ben Ali v Council

(Case T-170/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Death of the applicant - Proceedings not resumed by the successors - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 451/16)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Mehdi Ben Tijani Ben Haj Hamda Ben Haj Hassen Ben Ali (Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, France) (represented by: A. de Saint Remy, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: L. Vétillard and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/55 of 22 January 2021 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2021 L 23, p. 22) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/49 of 22 January 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 on restrictive measures against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2021 L 23, p. 5), in so far as those measures concern him and, second, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which he has allegedly suffered as a result of those measures.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 3 June 2022 — Mariani v Parliament

(Case T-196/22 R)

(Interim measures - Institutional law - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from taking part in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 284/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Thierry Mariani (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application of 14 April 2022 based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of decision D-301939 of the co-chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from taking part in election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his parliamentary mandate (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 — Collard v Parliament and ID

(Case T-53/22 R)

(Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - Member of the Parliament - Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 148/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Collard (Vauvert, France) (represented by: B. Kuchukian, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Identity and Democracy political group (ID)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament’s ‘Identity and Democracy’ political group (ID) of 22 January 2022 by which the applicant was suspended from that group and of the decision of the members of the ID political group of 25 January 2022 by which the applicant was excluded from that group.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-279/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Mylan - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3252 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Mylan — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2022 — Juvin v Parliament

(Case T-241/22 R)

(Interim relief - Law governing the Institutions - Member of Parliament - Exclusion from participation in election observation delegations of the Parliament - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 318/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hervé Juvin (Paris, France) (represented by: F.-P. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Decision D-301936 of the Co-Chairs of the Democracy Support and Election Coordination Group of 3 March 2022, which excluded him from all participation in the election observation delegations of the European Parliament until the end of his term of office as a Member of Parliament (2019-2024).

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 20 October 2022 — Cecoforma and Sopexa v REA

(Case T-493/22) (1)

(2022/C 472/60)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.
Order of the President of the General Court of 21 September 2022 — Xpand Consortium and Others v Commission

(Case T-281/22 R)

(Interim relief - Public supply contracts - Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 463/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Xpand Consortium (Brussels, Belgium), NTT Data Belgique (Brussels), Sopra Steria Benelux (Brussels), Fujitsu Technology Solutions (Brussels) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer, L. Lence de Frutos and A. Rebollar Corrales, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicants seek an order that the European Commission must refrain from launching a new procurement procedure with the same subject matter as that of the procedure for the award of a contract bearing the reference BUDG 19/PO/04, entitled ‘Provision of Development, Implementation, Maintenance/Operations, Advice and Consultancy Services in Accounting/Finance and Financial IT Systems’, until such time as the General Court has given a final ruling on their action for annulment, brought on 13 May 2022, against the Commission’s decision of 3 March 2022 to cancel that procurement procedure.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An official cannot, by submitting a request to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, revive for himself the possibility of lodging a complaint and an appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations, unless a new and substantive fact has occurred prior to the submission of the request.

In that respect, the fact that an official’s staff report was drawn up after the disputed promotion procedure does not constitute a new and substantive fact enabling him to contest a decision not to promote him, which has become definitive, as long as he was aware that the report had not been drawn up and that he could not therefore be taken into account in that promotion procedure. Since a decision not to promote an official can be disputed even in the absence of a staff report, there is nothing to stop the official in question from lodging a complaint against that decision on the ground that the failure to draw up his staff report placed him at a disadvantage.

(see paras 52, 57-58, 60)

See:

231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14

T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR‑SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T-138/99 Verheyden v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑219 and II‑1001, para. 43; T-70/98 Hilden v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑265, para. 39