ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 22 March 2018 –

Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T‑766/16 R)

(Interim proceedings — State aid — Aid granted by Spain in favour of certain professional football clubs — Public guarantee granted by a public body — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Application for a stay of proceedings — 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—Order of examination and method of verification—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(4)) (see paras 26-29)

2. 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—Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs—Public interest in the implementation of decisions adopted by EU institutions outweighing the personal interest of shareholders in the applicant company—Lack of any urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 32-39, 44-47, 53, 56)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) granted by Spain to Valencia Club de Fútbol, Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD and Elche Club de Fútbol, SAD (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.

2. The order of 11 November 2016, Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission (T‑766/16 R), is set aside.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 18 November 2019 –

BP v FRA

(Case T‑917/16 REV-INTP)

(Procedure — Interpretation of an order — Inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 168(1))

(see paras 15, 16)

Re:

Application for interpretation of the order of 11 July 2019, BP v FRA (T‑917/16 REV, EU:T:2019:548).

Operative part

1. The application for interpretation is dismissed as inadmissible.
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—Order of examination and method of verification—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(4))

(see paras 10-12, 25)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 23 January 2018 –

Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament

(Case T‑812/17 R)

(Interim measures — Public procurement — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Withdrawal of the contested act — No need to adjudicate in part — Application for an injunction — No 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—Order of examination and method of verification—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) (see paras 11-14)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Withdrawal of the contested measure—Request which has become devoid of purpose—No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 18-20)

3. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure—Withdrawal by the adjudicating authority of the decision to award the contract—Whether the risk materialises dependent on a future decision to award the contact—No urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, first, for a suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 1 December 2017 to reject the applicants’ tender in the tender procedure 06D 20/2017/M005 entitled ‘Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels’ and to award the contract to another tenderer, and secondly, for an injunction against the Parliament.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for a suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 1 December 2017 to reject the tender of Seco Belgium and Vinçotte in the tender procedure 06D 20/2017/M005 entitled ‘Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels’ and to award the contract to another tenderer.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed as to the remainder.

3. The order of 21 December 2017, Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament (T‑812/17 R), is set aside.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 March 2018 — UD v Commission

(Case T‑574/17)

(Civil Service — Recipient of a survivor’s pension — Social security — Rejection of a request for prior authorisation with a view to obtaining reimbursement of certain medical expenses — New request — Purely confirmatory document — Time limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act—Inadmissibility—Concept of confirmatory decision—Decision adopted following an application raising new and substantial facts—Not included

(Arts 263 TFEU and 270 TFEU)

(see paras 19-22, 30)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant prior authorisation to obtain reimbursement of certain medical expenses.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2018 —

Cambra Abaurrea v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑553/17)

(Economic and monetary policy — Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español — Action for annulment — Partial inadmissibility — Author of the contested measure)

Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Action against the author of the contested measure — Action for annulment of a measure of the Single Resolution Board formulated against the Parliament and the Council — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Arts 18 and 29)

(see paras 12-16)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the SRB of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, SA, or, in the alternative, suspension of the implementation of that decision.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the application in so far as it is directed against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 May 2018 –

Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (senso tek)

(Case T‑470/17)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark senso tek — Earlier EU figurative mark SENSOTEC — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal—Annulment or variation for reasons appearing after judgment was delivered—Not included (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(2)) (see paras 18-20)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 27, 28)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Refusal to register on a ground relating to refusal even limited to part of the Union (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 29)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark—Figurative marks senso tek and SENSOTEC (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32, 38, 46-48, 51-54)

5. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity between the goods or services in question—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 35-37)

6. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Relative grounds for refusal—Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 (Case R 1953/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Senso Tecnologie and Sensotek.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the action.
EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Revocation proceedings — Facts and evidence not submitted within the prescribed time-limit — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 51(1)(a) and 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 40(5))

(see para. 23)
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 — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief — Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 13, 15, 16)
38

Finally, PGNiG S.A. points to the fact that, despite, in particular, the orders of the President of the General Court of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (T‑849/16 R) and of 23 December 2016, Poland v Commission (T‑883/16 R), the OPAL pipeline has been operated at a level showing a use of capacities which were organised before the suspension of the execution of the contested decision following the conditions authorised by that decision. In that regard, it suffices to note, firstly, that, although legitimate questions may arise as regards the facts of the use of the transport capacities on the OPAL pipeline which followed the adoption of those orders, it is apparent from the file, confirmed at the hearing of 5 July 2017, that the current use of that pipeline in fact continues to be regulated by the conditions applicable before the adoption of the contested decision and, secondly, that, although the Federal Republic of Germany did indeed confirm, at that hearing, that some contracts, concerning bidding procedures organised before the adoption of the orders of 23 December 2016, PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission (T‑849/16 R) and of 23 December 2016, Poland v Commission (T‑883/16 R), had been executed in breach of the effects of the suspensions declared by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures in his orders, it did, however, emphasise the confusion which surrounded that situation. Following the adoption of those orders, proceedings were brought before the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany) and led to the adoption of a decision of 30 December 2016 suspending the agreement concluded between OGT and the BNetzA on 28 November 2016. The Federal Republic of Germany thus took the view, incorrectly, as it accepted at the hearing, that only the organisation of bidding procedures for the future was affected, excluding any effect on the performance of the contracts relating to past bidding procedures. In the light of the exchanges which then took place in the context of the present proceedings, the Federal Republic of Germany is of the opinion that such an incorrect interpretation could not happen again in the event of either a new suspension declared by the Judge hearing applications for interim measures or an annulment of the contested decision by the General Court. In that regard, it has stated that the German legislation granted it powers of injunction against the BNetzA which suffice to ensure that the decisions of the General Court and the Judge hearing applications for interim measures are given their full effect. Accordingly, there is nothing to suggest that a new suspension, ordered in the hypothetical situation of an application to the Judge hearing applications for interim measures under Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure and the annulment of the contested decision would not be followed by the effects which accompany such legal decisions.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against a decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) withdrawing a credit institution’s authorisation – Decision repealed and replaced by a decision with identical content taken in the context of the review procedure – No longer any interest in bringing proceedings – No need to adjudicate

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 131)

(see paras 29, 34, 35, 50-52, 55)
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 July 2018 –

Aquino and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑402/18 R)

(Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — Interpreters’ strike action — Measures of requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Application for interim measures — Inadmissible in part — Balance of interests)

1. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 12)

2. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Admissibility criteria—Measure capable of producing legal effects—Meaning—Decision having ceased to produce effects—Not included—Decision not existing at the time of the application for interim measures—Not included (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 13, 16)

3. 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—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, art. 156, § 4) (see paras 18, 20, 21)

4. Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Conditions for granting—Balancing of all the interests involved—Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 23)

Re:

Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, the suspension of the application of the decisions of the European Parliament of 2 and 3 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters and future decisions requisitioning interpreters on 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament limit the requisitions of interpreters in future.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2019 — Fugro v Commission

(Case T‑317/18)

(Action for annulment — Galileo satellite navigation programme — Technical and operational specifications — Lack of individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — European Commission Implementing Decision amending the technical and operational specifications relating to the commercial service offered by the system established under the Galileo programme — Not directly concerned — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22, 23, 28)

Re

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/321 of 2 March 2018 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/224 setting out the technical and operational specifications allowing the commercial service offered by the system established under the Galileo programme to fulfil the function referred to in Article 2(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1285/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 62, p. 34), and, in the alternative, for annulment of Article 1(2) of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 January 2019 –

MLPS v Commission

(Case T‑304/18)

(Action for annulment and for failure to act — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal by the Commission to institute proceedings under Article 7 TEU — Act not open to challenge — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment by reference to objective criteria — An act of an institution which amounts to a rejection — Appraisal in the light of the nature of the request giving rise to the act (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 10)

2. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Refusal by the Commission to bring proceedings under Article 7 TEU — Precluded (Art. 7 TEU; Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 15-17)

3. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Refusal by the Commission to bring proceedings under Article 7 TEU — Action brought by a natural or legal person — Precluded (Art. 7 TEU; Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 18-20)

4. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — Actionable omissions — Refusal by the Commission to bring proceedings under Article 7 TEU — Inadmissibility (Art. 7 TEU; Arts 263, fourth para. and 265, third para. TFEU) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 March 2018 refusing to take any further action on a complaint requesting that proceedings be brought on the basis of Article 7 TEU against the French Republic and, secondly, action based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully refrained from dealing with that complaint.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 June 2019 –

BS v Parliament

(Case T‑593/18)

(Civil Service — Officials — Notice of modification of pension entitlements — Dependent child allowance — Education allowance — Child suffering from an infirmity preventing him from earning a livelihood — Actual maintenance of the child — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Recovery of overpayments — Right to good administration — Action for annulment)

1. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Actual maintenance — Meaning — Burden of proof (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 67(1) and Annex VII, Art. 2(2)) (see paras 32-34, 38, 39, 47, 49, 54)

2. Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for granting (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 67 and Annex VII, Arts 2(2) and 3(1)) (see paras 68-72)

3. Officials — Principles — Rights of defence — Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him — Scope (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(a)) (see paras 76, 77)

4. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Decision taken in a context known to the addressee Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(2)(c); Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 25, second para.) (see paras 78-82, 87, 88)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the notice of modification of the Applicant’s pension entitlements of 10 August 2017 issued by the Parliament and, secondly, ‘so far as necessary’ of the decision to recover the purported overpayment of EUR 1 589.16 in respect of the months of September, October and November 2017 and of EUR 4 815.16, as shown on the pension slip for December 2017.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms — Letter sent to the applicant containing a decision of the SRB not to carry out an ex post definitive valuation of the entity — Application to the entity of a sale of business tool not permitting the payment of compensation following a definitive valuation — Loss of the applicant’s capacity as a shareholder — Applicant’s situation not affected by a possible ex post definitive valuation — Not included

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Art. 20(11), (12), (16), (17) and (18), Art. 76(1)(e) and Art. 24)

(see paras 40-49, 51, 52, 54-62)