ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-24)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof – Refusal of banks to provide such a bank guarantee – Admissibility as evidence of an objective impossibility of obtaining such a financial instrument – Duty to provide concrete and precise indications supported by detailed and certified documentary evidence (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-28)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account of the position of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-32, 34-35)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Pre-stressing steel), inter alia in so far as it imposes the obligation to set up a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Administrative validation concerning payments due to the European Medicines Agency — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 297/95, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — EMA invoice establishing the exact amounts due for processing applications for amendment of the terms of a marketing authorisation and fixing the due date — Email from the agency rejecting a request to reduce the fees — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2343/2002, Arts 53(2) and (3), and 57(1)) (see paras 37-45, 51)

3. Procedure — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Excusable error — Concept — No action by reason of an email from the EMA informing the person concerned of the procedures for bringing an application for reduction of a debt due to the EMA — Not included (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 47-49)

4. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time limits — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision recalling the legal basis of an earlier decision and reacting to a new argument submitted well after the expiry of the time limit for bringing an action against the earlier decision — Included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 54-60)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Annulment of a debit note issued by the Commission – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility

(Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Conditions

(Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c))

Summary

1. Under Article 263 TFEU, the Courts of the European Union are to review the legality of acts of the institutions intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. That jurisdiction concerns only the acts referred to by Article 288 TFEU, which the institutions must adopt under the conditions laid down by the Treaty in the exercise of their prerogatives as public authorities.

On the other hand, acts adopted by the institutions in a purely contractual context from which they are inseparable are, by their very nature, not among the measures covered by Article 288 TFEU, annulment of which may be sought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.

An action concerning a debit note issued by the Commission pursuant to a contract binding it to the applicant may therefore validly be brought before the European Union judicature on the basis of Article 263 TFEU only if that note is intended to produce binding legal effects which go beyond those stemming from the contract and which involve the exercise of the prerogatives of a public authority conferred on the Commission in its capacity as an administrative authority.

(see paras 22-25)

2. Where an action for annulment or an action for damages is brought before the Court when the dispute is, in point of fact, contractual in nature, the European Union judicature reclassifies the action, provided that the conditions for such a reclassification are satisfied.

However, when faced with a dispute which is contractual in nature, the European Union judicature considers itself unable to reclassify an action for annulment either where the applicant’s express intention not to base his application on Article 272 TFEU precludes such a reclassification, or where the action is not based on any plea alleging infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship in question, whether they be contractual clauses or provisions of the national law designated in the contract.

(see paras 34-35)
A professional association which is responsible for protecting the collective interests of its members is entitled to bring an action for the annulment of a final decision of the Commission on State aid only in two sets of circumstances, namely, first, where the undertakings which it represents or some of those undertakings themselves have locus standi and, second, if it can prove an interest of its own, in particular because its position as a negotiator has been affected by the measure of which annulment is sought. In that regard, the first situation of admissibility of an action brought by an association, based on the representation of its members is that in which the association, by bringing its action, has substituted itself for one or more of the members whom it represents, on condition that those members were themselves in a position to bring an admissible action.

The action brought by an association presents procedural advantages, since it obviates the institution of numerous separate actions against the same decisions. That first situation of admissibility of an action brought by an association presupposes that the association acts in place of its members. It follows that an association, acting as the representative of its members, has locus standi to bring proceedings for annulment where those members have not themselves brought an action, even though they would have been entitled to do so.

Such a solution does not deprive Article 263 TFEU of its effectiveness and does not prejudice either the principle of legal certainty or the association’s rights of defence. It is true that it makes the admissibility of an action by associations conditional upon no action having been brought by other parties, in this case their members. However, such a situation cannot be considered as being a source of uncertainty or insecurity, as it can be legitimately expected of an association responsible for protecting the interests of its members that it is aware of actions brought by them and vice versa. Moreover, the inadmissibility of the applicant association’s action by reason of actions brought by its members does not affect the effectiveness of Article 263 TFEU and its rights of defence, that is, in essence, its right to effective judicial protection. There are two possibilities: either the applicant association brings an action to defend the interests of its members who have locus standi and the action declared admissible will be that of the member of the association or that of the association depending on whether or not one of its members has brought its own action; or the association brings an action to defend its own interest and its action may be declared admissible, even though actions have been brought by its members, where the existence of such an interest is established.

(see paras 19, 23-24, 29)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑104/10)

(Action for annulment — ERDF — Reduction in financial aid — RESIDER II programme — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

1. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Infringement of essential procedural requirements—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Condition—Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 61, 62)

2. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 69, 72)

Re:

ACTION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany.

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 10561 of 18 December 2009 on the reduction of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted by Commission Decision C(95) 2529 of 27 November 1995 in respect of the RESIDER II Programme Saarland (1994-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany is annulled.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2014 —

Trenzas y Cables de Acero v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑428/10 and T‑577/10 and Case T‑441/12)

‛Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Action brought against a Commission decision amending the initial decision — Decision irrelevant to the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17-22)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part

1. In Case T‑428/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. In Case T‑577/10, the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.
APPLICATION for, in essence, a declaration that the Commission minutes of 27 May 2009 ((2009) 1874 final) are unlawful, in so far as it appears therein that the Commission decided to grant legal assistance to one of its former members and to a number of its agents.
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 May 2010 – Reagens v Commission

(Case T-30/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of operation of the decision – Financial loss – Absence of exceptional circumstances – 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 judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss –Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 31-33, 45-47)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 42-44, 55-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/38.589 – heat stabilisers).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2010 – Cross Czech v Commission

(Case T-252/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities – Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Disregard of formal 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 – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 7-8)

2. Application for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Pleas not set out in the application and pleadings – General reference to documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(3)) (see paras 9-16)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 12 March 2010 confirming the findings of the audit of financial statements submitted by the applicant for the period from 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 in respect of the eMapps.com, CEEC IST NET and Transfer-East projects.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-481/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/429/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 x MON 810 (MON-88Ø17-3 x MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 46).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2012 — Octapharma Pharmazeutika v EMA

(Case T‑573/10)

Medicinal products for human use — Changes to a plasma master file (PMF) — Fees payable to the EMA — Act with adverse effects — Measure merely confirmatory — Manifest inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Administrative validation concerning payments due to the European Medicines Agency — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 297/95, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — EMA invoice establishing the exact amounts due for processing applications for amendment of the terms of a marketing authorisation and fixing the due date — Email from the agency rejecting a request to reduce the fees — Included (Art. 263 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2343/2002, Arts 53(2) and (3), and 57(1)) (see paras 37-45, 51)

3. Procedure — Time limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Excusable error — Concept — No action by reason of an email from the EMA informing the person concerned of the procedures for bringing an application for reduction of a debt due to the EMA — Not included (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 47-49)

4. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time limits — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision recalling the legal basis of an earlier decision and reacting to a new argument submitted well after the expiry of the time limit for bringing an action against the earlier decision — Included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 54-60)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the letter of 21 October 2010 (EMA/643425/2010) by which the European Medicines Agency (EMA) refused to repay to the applicant the sum of EUR 180 700 corresponding to the difference between, on the one hand, the sum the applicant paid to it in respect of fees for the examination of variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products and, on the other hand, the sum which the applicant maintains it should have paid.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications 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. 104(2)) (see paras 12-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 19-20)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Possibility of the Commission imposing penalty payments and fines in case of non-compliance with the deadline for sending the information – Realisation of the damage hypothetical in nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18(4) and 23(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from possible unlawful use of data obtained in the context of a request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 – None (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(4)) (see paras 25-26)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 31 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 – Cement and related products).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.