ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/18

Order of the General Court of 30 June 2011 — Tecnoprocess v Commission

(Case T-403/09) (1)

(Action for damages - Unjust enrichment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 282/34

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Tecnoprocess Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Majoli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and L. Prete, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the delegations of the European Union to Morocco and Nigeria have been unjustly enriched and, second, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 114 069,94 and the interest due on that sum.

Operative part of the order

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Tecnoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 217/22

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission

(Case T-440/09) (1)

(Extra-contractual liability - Agriculture - Bird flu - Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector - Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - No causal link - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

2012/C 217/47

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione (Orgiano, Italy) (represented by: F. Tosello, S. Rizzioli and C. Pauly, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States (OJ 2006 L 180, p. 3), in so far as that regulation does not provide for such measures in favour of poultry farmers active in the farming and marketing of quails.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.

2. Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/34

Order of the General Court of 16 February 2012 — Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra v Commission

(Case T-446/09) (1)

2012/C 109/67

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

(1) OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/24

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CIVR and Others v Commission

(Case T-303/09) (1)

((State aid - Framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries - Financing by compulsory voluntary contributions - Decision classifying the aid scheme as compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 194/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Conseil interprofessionnel des vins du Roussillon (CIVR) (Perpignan, France); Comité national des interprofessions des vins à appellation d’origine et à indication géographique (CNIV) (Paris, France); and Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and Y. Trifounovitch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, then by B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 in respect of State aid No 561/2008 relating to the framework system of activities carried out by agricultural inter-trade organisations recognised in France in favour of the members of the represented agricultural industries.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 244, 10. 10. 2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/82

Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Daniel Swarovski v OHIM — Swarovski (Dabiel Swarovski Privat)

(Case T-55/09) (1)

2013/C 225/184

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 179/40

Order of the President of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Parliament v U

(Case T-103/10 P(R)-R)

(Interim measures - Civil Service - Officials - Decision to dismiss - Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union made in proceedings for interim measures - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 179/71

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Respondent: U (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse and A. Salerno, lawyers)

Re:

Application to suspend the application of the order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 18 December 2009 in Case F-92/09 R U v Parliament [2009] ECR I-0000.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer a need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures made by the European Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/57

Order of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)

(Case T-140/10) (1)

()

2010/C 328/90

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 234/39

Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-212/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)

2010/C 234/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M.S. Nielsen, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2010 (Case R 1112/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign IDENTIFICATION SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Strålfors AB shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 113/21

Order of the General Court of 17 February 2011 — Suez Environnement and Lyonnaise des eaux France v Commission

(Case T-274/10) (1)

2011/C 113/43

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/57

Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — BASF v Commission

(Case T-105/10) (1)

()

2011/C 30/104

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 139/18

Order of the General Court of 17 March 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-44/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Obligation to state reasons - Act adversely affecting an official - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

2011/C 139/35

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2009 in Case F-11/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking annulment of that order.

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

(1) OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 238/36

Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Iberdrola v Commission

(Case T-486/10) (1)

2011/C 238/63

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 204/29

Order of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission

(Case T-385/10) (1)

2011/C 204/53

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 319/27

Order of the General Court of 3 August 2011 — Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-507/10) (1)

2011/C 319/57

Language of the case: Lithuanian

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

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, Corrigendum OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 282/49

Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)

(Case T-196/10) (1)

2011/C 282/90

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/16

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Elementis and Others v Commission

(Case T-43/10) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Markets for tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Withdrawal of the decision - Disappearance of the subject-matter of the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 6/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Elementis plc (London, United Kingdom); Elementis Holdings Ltd (London); Elementis UK Ltd (London); and Elementis Services Ltd (London) (represented by: T. Wessely, A. de Brousse, lawyers, A. Woods, Solicitor, and E. Spinelli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Bourke, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers), in so far as it concerns the applicants, as well as, in the alternative, an application for a reduction in the fines imposed on the applicants under that decision.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 340/23

Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Borax Europe v ECHA

(Case T-346/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)

2011/C 340/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Borax Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Borax Europe Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/20

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2012 — Portugal v Commission

(Case T-475/10) (1)

2012/C 184/39

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 174/23

Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — F91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission

(Case T-341/10) (1)

(Action for annulment - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - No challengeable act - Inadmissibility)

2012/C 174/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: F91 Diddeléng (Dudelange, Luxembourg); Julien Bonnetaud (Yutz, France); Thomas Gruszczynski (Amnéville, France); Rainer Hauck (Maxdorf, Germany); Stéphane Martine (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg); Grégory Molnar (Moyeuvre-Grande, France); and Yann Thibout (Algrange, France) (represented by L. Misson, C. Delrée and G. Ernes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by G. Rozet and P. Van Nuffel, agents

Intervener in support of the defendant: Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF) (Mondercange, Luxembourg) (represented initially by K. Daly, solicitor, and D. Keane, SC, then by K. Daly)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application for any appropriate order.

Operative part of the order

The General Court orders:

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

3. The Fédération luxembourgeoise de football (FLF) shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/20

Order of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail)

(Case T-527/10) (1)

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

2012/C 227/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: G-mail GmbH (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Nickel Institute v Commission

(Case T-180/10) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC - 30th and 31st adaptations to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)

(2012/C 331/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: initially, K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor, and, subsequently, K. Nordlander)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Petkovska, C. Meyer-Seitz and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2010 (reference SG.E3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)65824) concerning the refusal to grant Nickel Institute full access to certain internal documents, in particular to opinions of the Commission’s Legal Service, drawn up in the context of two consecutive procedures which resulted in the classification of, inter alia, certain nickel carbonate compounds in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs as well as half of the costs incurred by Nickel Institute.

3. Nickel Institute shall bear half of its own costs.

4. The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 329/12

Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-511/10) (1)

((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotations - Refusal of access - Replacement of the contested measure in the course of proceedings - Failure to adapt the claim for annulment - No need to adjudicate))

2014/C 329/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens (Greece)) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira, E. Manhaeve and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2010)508190 of 12 August 2010 refusing access to requests for quotations concerning certain framework contracts managed by the Publications Office of the European Union.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and the European Commission are to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 15, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/21

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2013 — Rungis express AG v OHIM — Žito (MARESTO)

(Case T-243/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 336/42

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Rungis express AG (Meckenheim, Germany) (represented: initially by U. Feldmann and subsequently by O. Dimopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, R. Pethke and D. Botis, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: M. Praviček, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 691/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Žito prehrambena industrija d.d. and Rungis express AG.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and, each of them, to bear half of the defendant’s costs.

(1) OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.
Case T-393/10 INTP: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (Proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Rectification — Failure to adjudicate)

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2018 — Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission

(Case T-393/10 INTP) ( 1 )

‛(Proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Rectification — Failure to adjudicate)’

Parties

Applicants: Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH (Hamm, Germany), Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hamm), Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: C. Stadler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, H. Leupold and G. Meessen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Request for interpretation of the judgment of 15 July 2015, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (T-393/10, EU:T:2015:515) and, in the alternative, application for rectification of and compensation for the failure to adjudicate in respect of that judgment.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Westfälische Drahtindustrie GmbH, Westfälische Drahtindustrie Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Pampus Industriebeteiligungen GmbH & Co. KG are ordered to pay the costs.

( 1 ) OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.