ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 January 2015 — Bolívar Cerezo v OHIM — Renovalia Energy (RENOVALIA)

(Case T‑166/12)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RENOVALIA — Earlier national word marks RENOVA ENERGY and RENOVAENERGY — Partial refusal to register — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Direction issued to the Office — Exclusion (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65(6)) (see para. 16)

2. Actions for annulment — Contested act — Assessment of legality in the light of the information available at the time of adoption of the measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 21, 22, 24, 25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 663/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Renovalia Energy, SA and Mr Juan Bolívar Cerezo.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
35

Second, under the third subparagraph of Article 96(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may, without having to fix the exact amount of the legal aid beforehand, specify in the order granting legal aid a limit which the lawyer’s disbursements and fees may not, in principle, exceed. It is accordingly open to the Court, under Article 97(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to calculate a posteriori the amount strictly necessary to cover the legal fees where, by virtue of the decision closing the proceedings, the recipient of legal aid has to bear his own costs. In that connection, the Court may take into account the difficulty of the work carried out by the designated lawyer and, on the basis of evidence produced by that lawyer, the number of hours which he has actually had to devote to the case, as well as the various expenses which he has had to pay.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑468/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 18 June 2013 in Case F‑100/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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. 104(2)) (see paras 11-13)

2. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Transmission to the national authorities of information gathered in an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Damage having already occurred at the time the court decision was adopted — No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19, 32, 40, 42, 43)

3. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Community law — Application seeking measures outside the scope of the main proceedings — Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20, 28-30)

4. Actions for damages — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — EU to be ordered to pay compensation for damage in accordance with general principles common to the laws of the Member States on non-contractual liability — Reparation in kind in the form of an injunction or prohibition (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 23)

5. EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Transmission to the national authorities of information gathered in an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Discretion of the national authorities as to the action to be taken — Protection from possible prosecution assured at national level — Burden of proof (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1073/1999, Art. 10(2)) (see paras 33-37)

6. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Transmission to the national authorities of information gathered in an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Damage to the applicant’s reputation — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 256(1) TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures lodged as part of an action for damages seeking compensation for the damage the applicant suffered in the course of his professional activities and regarding his reputation resulting from allegedly unlawful conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as part of an investigation conducted by its agents.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part

Keywords Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Inoperative pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 20, 21 ) Subject of the case Re: ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2013 (Case R 341/2013‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Victoriano Marín Nicolás and Gruppo Norton Srl. Operative part Operative part 1. The action is dismissed. 2. Gruppo Norton Srl is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2014 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)

(Case T‑427/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition Proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Gruppo Norton S.r.l. — Earlier national figurative mark NORTON HISPAŃO — Rule 49(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any legal basis — Inoperative pleas (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 20, 21)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 31 May 2013 (Case R 341/2013‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Mr Victoriano Marín Nicolás and Gruppo Norton Srl.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of an executive agency of the European Union to disallow certain costs incurred in carrying out a project benefiting from Community financial assistance — Organisation entrusted with implementing the project not directly affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 20, 21, 24-32, 36)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of 18 March 2013 of the Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) relating to certain expenditure incurred in carrying out a feasibility study concerning the intermodal nature of the Bergamo-Orio al Serio airport (Italy) following the grant of financial aid by the Commission to the Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile (ENAC, Italian national civil aviation authority).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application by the Republic of Poland for leave to intervene.

3. The Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA).
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Gopack v Commission

(Case T‑235/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

2. Economic and monetary policy — Monetary policy — Coordination of monetary policies — Informal meeting of Member States using the euro within the Eurogroup — Autonomous entity — Imputation of the declarations adopted to the Commission or the European Central Bank — Exclusion (Art. 137 TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 39, 41-45)

3. Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Coordination of economic policies — European stability mechanism — Possibility of the Commission and the European Central Bank exercising review powers — Exclusion (Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Arts 1, 2 and 32(2)) (see paras 47, 48)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Declarations adopted by the Eurogroup — Not included (Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 51-53, 60)

5. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Marinos Nikolaou is ordered to pay, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 November 2014 —

Eleftheriou and Papachristofi v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑291/13)

‛Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 33, 34)

2. Actions for damages — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to rule on the legality of a protocol of agreement concluded between a Member State and the European Stability Mechanism — Not included (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(4)) (see paras 42‑47)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 49, 50)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Damage resulting from failure of an institution to act — Burden of proof (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 52, 53)

5. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Limits — Competence to review the legality of measures not emanating from the institutions, organs or bodies of the Union — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 56, 58)

6. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Application for interim measures — Application submitted in the same document as the main action — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(3)) (see para. 61)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others

(Case T‑383/13)

‛Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission — Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions’

1. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Mission under the EU security and defence policy not having legal personality — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted by the head of such a mission in the context of disciplinary proceedings — No capacity as defendant — Application inadmissible (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, Arts 1, 6, 7 and 11) (see paras 23-29)

2. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Mission under the EU security and defence policy — Measures adopted by the head of such a mission in the context of the secondment of a national expert — Imputability to the national authorities — Application inadmissible — Jurisdiction of the national courts (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, Arts 7(4), 8 and 10(2)) (see paras 35-42)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of decisions of 10 May 2013 in disciplinary cases Nos 02/2013 and 06/2013, signed by the Head of the EULEX Kosovo mission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

18 September 2014

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Application at first instance dismissed as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Action lodged out of time — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 17 October 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission (F‑127/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:161), seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings. Mr Marcuccio is ordered to refund to the General Court the sum of EUR 2 000 pursuant to Article 90 of its Rules of Procedure.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1) and (6))

As regards the relationship between the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant on a faxed application and that affixed to the original lodged no later than ten days afterwards, where the signature at the bottom of the faxed application is not the same as the signature on the original application lodged subsequently, the faxed application cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings.

Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Tribunal is taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days after the copy of the original was received. The strict application of that provision fulfils the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 11, 18)

See:

judgment of 22 September 2011 in Bell & Ross v OHIM, C‑426/10 P, ECR, EU:C:2011:612, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein

orders of 14 November 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑229/13 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2013:608, paras 14 to 20; 19 December 2013 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑385/13 P, ECR-SC EU:T:2013:710, paras 13 to 21; and 10 April 2014 in Marcuccio v Commission, T‑57/14 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2014:223, para. 9
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

28 May 2013

Case T‑130/13 P

Stephanie Honnefelder

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Time-limit for bringing an appeal — Delay — No unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal:

against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 in Case F‑42/11 Honnefelder v Commission [2012] ECR-SC, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Ms Stephanie Honnefelder is to pay her own costs.

Summary

Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which applies to appeals against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal by virtue of the last subparagraph of Article 138(1) of those Rules, provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading reaches the Tribunal Registry by fax is not taken into account for the purpose of compliance with the time limits in proceedings, unless the signed original is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days after receipt of the fax. It is impossible to accept an argument that the period of ten days laid down in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure begins to run from the expiry of the period of two months and ten days which results from the first paragraph of Article 9 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, Articles 101(1)(a) and 101(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (which apply to appeals against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 144 of the Rules) and Article 102(2) of those Rules, regardless of the date of receipt of the fax. In particular, where the fax is received more than 10 days before the expiry of the time-limit fixed for bringing an appeal before the General Court, the provisions of Article 43(6) of the Rules do not extend that time-limit. (see paras 13, 17) See: C‑325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM, [2005] ECR I‑403, para. 18