ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 January 2015 — St’art and Others v Commission

(Case T‑36/14)

‛Action for annulment — ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ Programme — ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries — Decision to end the project — Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Application for annulment of a decision to terminate a financing agreement — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 28-30, 33, 35)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Arbitration clause — Concept (Art. 272 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38)

3. Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship — Exclusion of reclassification (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 44, 46-48)

Re:

ACTION for annulation of, first, the Commission’s ‘implicit decision of unknown date’ aimed at ending the project ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and, therefore, ending the grant awarded to the consortium of which the applicants form part and, secondly, the ‘explicit decision confirming it’ adopted on 29 November 2013.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2015 —

Pro Asyl v EASO

(Case T‑617/14)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Operational Plan for the deployment of an asylum support team in the territory of Bulgaria — Refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Electronic document register — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a decision of the European Asylum Support Office refusing access to an operational plan and an electronic register of documents — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 11) (see paras 39-44, 54)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the EASO of 10 June 2014.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 10 June 2014 refusing access to the operational plan to deploy the European Union to support team in Bulgaria.

2. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2015 —

Pro Asyl v EASO

(Case T‑617/14)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Operational Plan for the deployment of an asylum support team in the territory of Bulgaria — Refusal of access — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Electronic document register — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a decision of the European Asylum Support Office refusing access to an operational plan and an electronic register of documents — Disappearance of the interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 11) (see paras 39-44, 54)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the EASO of 10 June 2014.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of letter EASO/ED/2014/134 of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 10 June 2014 refusing access to the operational plan to deploy the European Union to support team in Bulgaria.

2. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a sphere)

(Case T‑625/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a sphere — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark representing a sphere (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 25)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community 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. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 168/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sphere as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
4.

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Invalidity proceedings concerning absolute grounds for refusal — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties — Well-known facts taken into account (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 7(1), 52, 55 and 76(1)) (see paras 31-34)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act — Definition of position within the meaning of Article 265, second paragraph, TFEU, before commencement of proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 20)

2. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Compulsory — Action brought before expiry of the time-limit for the institution’s reply — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

3. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Concept — Measure not considered satisfactory — Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 25)

4. Actions for failure to act — 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. 265 TFEU) (see paras 30-33)

5. Approximation of laws — Nutritional and health claims concerning foodstuffs — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Conditions for using the said claims — Application of transitional measures for claims in the course of evaluation at the time of the entry into force of Regulation No 1924/2006 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1924/2006, Arts 13(1), and 28(5) and (6)) (see paras 35-38)

6. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Concept (see para. 50)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully refrained from ordering the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to evaluate the health claims relating to botanical substances as a condition prior to the adoption of the definitive list of authorised health claims in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.
Although it is true that it would be inconsistent with the objective of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU to interpret the conditions under which the action is admissible so restrictively as to limit the availability of this procedure merely to the categories of measures referred to by Article 288 TFEU, the fact remains that that power of interpretation and application of the provisions of the Treaty by the EU judicature does not apply where the applicant’s legal position falls within the contractual relationships whose legal status is governed by the national law agreed to by the contracting parties.

Were the EU judicature to hold that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the annulment of measures falling within purely contractual relationships, not only would it risk rendering Article 272 TFEU — which grants the Courts of the European Union jurisdiction pursuant to an arbitration clause — meaningless, but would also risk, where the contract does not contain such a clause, extending its jurisdiction beyond the limits laid down by Article 274 TFEU, which specifically gives national courts or tribunals ordinary jurisdiction over disputes to which the European Union is a party. It follows from this that, where there is a contract between the applicant and one of the institutions, an action may be brought before the European Union judicative on the basis of Article 263 TFEU only where the contested measure aims to produce binding legal effects falling outside of the contractual relationship between the parties and which involve the exercise of the prerogatives of a public authority conferred on the contracting institution acting in its capacity as an administrative authority.

In that regard, in the event that an institution, specifically the Commission, chooses to allocate financial contributions by means of a contract falling within the framework of Article 272 TFEU, it is bound to stay within that framework. Accordingly, the institution is obliged, in particular, to ensure that it does not use, in the context of relationships with its counterparties, ambiguous formulations which might be understood by the parties to the contract as constituting unilateral decision-making powers going beyond the contractual provisions.

(see paras 33-37)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 December 2015 —

Banco Espírito Santo v Commission

(Case T‑814/14)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Aid to the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo SA — Creation of a bridge bank — Decision not to raise objections — Commitments made by the Portuguese authorities — Monitoring of compliance with their commitments by a trustee — Payment of the trustee by the bad bank — Application for partial annulment — Inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Purpose — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Requirement not met — Decision of the Commission not to raise objections to a notified aid and simultaneously taking note of undertakings by the Member State — Undertakings by the Member State and the notified measure indissolubly linked — Application for annulment of some of the undertakings — Inadmissibility (see paras 24-34)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Points 9 and 18 of Annex II to Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final, of 3 August 2014, State aid No SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal, Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo, S.A., in so far as they impose, or may be interpreted as imposing, on the applicant the responsibility for ensuring the remuneration or payment of any other costs of the Monitoring Trustee with respect to the commitments made by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the Portuguese Republic.

3. Banco Espirito Santo SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Where the end of an infringement depends on the adoption of a national measure, such as a repealing measure, it is the date of entry into force of that measure that must be taken into consideration in determining the date when infringement ended. In the case of a failure to fulfil obligations established in a judgment of the Court of Justice and consisting in the existence of legislation incompatible with EU law, that failure to fulfil obligations comes to an end when the national law repealing that incompatible legislation enters into force. The Commission is therefore justified in taking the view that, in accordance with such a judgment, a penalty payment must be imposed on the Member State concerned from the date when the said judgment was delivered, in respect of the period during which the legislation incompatible with EU law remained in force.

The Commission is competent in principle to recover sums owed by Member States where the Court of Justice imposes a penalty payment on them under Article 260(2) TFEU. That competence means that the Commission is able to assess whether the conditions laid down by the Court in the judgment imposing a penalty payment are met in determining the date on which infringement in question ended. However, that competence does not permit the Commission to assess the conformity with EU law of a rule or conduct of a Member State on which the Court has not previously ruled.

In a case where the failure to fulfil obligations established by the Court consists in failure to repeal the national legislation incompatible with EU law, the Commission cannot go beyond verifying that that legislation has actually been repealed. It cannot therefore hold that the repeal of the incompatible national legislation is insufficient and conclude that only new legislation can put an end to that incompatibility. In doing so, the Commission assesses the conformity of the new system with EU law, whereas the Court of Justice has not had the opportunity to rule on the matter.

On the other hand, the Commission remains within the limits of the competence which it generally holds in relation to implementation of the EU budget where it quantifies the penalty payment without conducting a separate examination of the conformity of the new legislation with EU law, simply stating the date of entry into force of the national rule repealing the incompatible legislation, a repeal which the Court of Justice has considered sufficient to bring to an end the infringement established.

(see paras 40-42)
17

In the first place, it must be noted that the purpose and nature of the main proceedings did not present any particular complexity. The case raised a question falling within the context of ordinary trade-mark litigation, namely that of whether there was a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), raised in the course of opposition proceedings against an application for a European Union trade mark. The applicant had, moreover, invoked only one plea in support of its action, alleging that there was no such likelihood of confusion. The case in question concerned neither a new point of law nor a complex factual situation, and cannot therefore be regarded as presenting any particular difficulty. Likewise, the case did not have any particular significance in relation to European Union law, inasmuch as the judgment of 26 November 2015, Nordschleife (T‑181/14, not published, EU:T:2015:889) forms part of a well-established line of case-law. Moreover, the intervener did not claim, in his application for taxation of costs, that the case was particularly complex or important.
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 May 2015 —

Jaber v Council

(Case T‑154/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restriction on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Failure to comply with procedural 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 8-10)

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 other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 11, 12)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds and restrictions on entry into and transit through EU territory — Need to provide a trustworthy overall image of the situation of the person concerned by the restrictive measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the measures imposed on the applicant under Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/108 of 26 January 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 2), and of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/117 of 26 January 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 20, p. 85).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 —

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA

(Case T‑543/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — 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 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 19-21)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage based on the happening of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to justify urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 29)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure — Risk of fundamental rights being undermined — Not sufficient to constitute serious damage — Assessment according to the circumstances of the case (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see para. 31)

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 — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 35-37, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 to include company O. as a 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 application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 April 2016 —

Dima v EUIPO (Shape of an open cubic box)

(Case T‑383/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Form of an open cubic box — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) 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 devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 14)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional trade marks consisting of the shape of the product itself — Distinctive character — Criteria for assessment — Shape in question being a ‘variant’ of the habitual shapes of the type of products concerned — Fact not sufficient to establish distinctiveness of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15-18)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a box (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 22, 23)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2015 (Case R 2568/2014-5) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of an open cubic box as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.