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 – 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 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 21-23)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 26-27, 29-30)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment by reference to the situation of the group to which that company belongs (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 35)

4. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 40)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting (Art. 278 TEU) (see para. 55)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2011/1/EU of 20 July 2010 on the State aid scheme C 38/09 (ex NN 58/09) which Spain is planning to implement for RTVE (OJ 2011 L 1, p. 9).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/428/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122x1507xNK603 (DAS-59122-7xDAS-Ø15Ø7xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 201, p. 41).

Operative part

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.

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.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Decision of European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern – Measure published exclusively on the internet – Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court not applicable

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 101(1) and 102(1); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 57 and 59)

Summary

Whereas, under the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the proceedings provided for in that article are to be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the applicant, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the applicant, as the case may be, that provision does not give any indication as to the method of publication that it envisages and does not restrict the publication within the meaning of that provision to specified methods of publication. Publication within the meaning of that provision cannot, therefore, consist of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union only.

As regards an action brought against a decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying acrylamide as a substance of very high concern fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), and including acrylamide in the list of substances identified with a view to future inclusion in Annex XIV to that regulation, in accordance with Article 59 thereof, that period two months does not begin to run from the end of the 14th day following the date of publication of that decision. Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which lays down such a rule, applies, according to its wording, only to acts published in the Official Journal of the European Union and may not be applied, beyond the confines of that wording, to acts published in another manner such as the said decision of the ECHA, for which Regulation No 1907/2006 provides for publication exclusively on the internet.

Since, therefore, the time-limit for bringing an action against such a decision is to be calculated in accordance with Article 101(1) of that regulation and since, given the period of 10 days on account of distance, the period provided for by that provision had expired on the date when it was brought, the action must be regarded as out of time and dismissed as inadmissible.

(see paras 30, 32-34, 39-40, 43)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

(Case T-453/10)

‛Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Devolved administration — No direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Action by a regional body benefiting from that financing and acting as management authority for the funds received — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 42-57, 65)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is ordered to pay the costs.

Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 March 2012 — Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development v Commission

(Case T-453/10)

‛Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Devolved administration — No direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Action by a regional body benefiting from that financing and acting as management authority for the funds received — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 39, 42-57, 65)

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2010/399/EU of 15 July 2010 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2010 L 184, p. 6).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 the Commission addressed to a Member State, reducing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and requiring partial reimbursement of sums paid

–

Action brought by a regional entity benefiting from that assistance and acting as management authority for the funds received

–

Not directly concerned

–

Inadmissibility

–

Repercussion of the financial consequences of the decision onto that regional entity

–

No effect (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 29-30, 32-35, 37, 39-44, 48-53

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009, incorporating a reduction in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance granted in application of Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000, incorporating approval of the operational programme POR Puglia for the period 2000-2006, on the basis of Objective No 1.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Regione Puglia is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs related to the interlocutory proceedings.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

—

Appeals procedure

—

Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM

—

Revocation of the earlier trade mark constituting the basis of the opposition

—

No further interest in bringing an action

—

No need to adjudicate (Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 60, 64(3), and 65(5)) (see paras 36, 37

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2010 (Case R 1408/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between France Télécom and Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH.

Operative part

Operative part

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

2. Just Music Fernsehbetriebs GmbH and France Télécom are ordered to bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

2 December 2010

Case T-73/10 P

Svetoslav Apostolov

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Competition — Rejection of application — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Delay — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

Appeal: brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 December 2009 in Case F-8/09 Apostolov v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-509 and II-A-1-2763, seeking, inter alia, to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Svetoslav Apostolov is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Mistaken assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11)

2. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Earlier order granting the appellant legal aid — No effect

(Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 96(1))

1. The first instance court has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, save where a substantive inaccuracy in its findings is attributable to the documents submitted to it, and to appraise those facts. The appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review by the General Court.

(see para. 24)

See: T-404/06 P ETF v Landgren [2009] ECR II-2841, paras 191 and 192 and the case-law cited therein

2. There is no connection between an application for legal aid and the main action such that the order ruling on that application can prejudge the admissibility of the action, since the application does not have the same subject-matter as the action and can even be filed before the action, in accordance with Article 96(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to deduce from the order granting him legal aid that his main action, which he had not yet even brought, was admissible.

(see para. 26)

See: T-37/93 Stagakis v Parliament [1994] ECR-SC I-A-137 and II-451, para. 23
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 – Sviluppo Globale v Commission

(Case T-6/10 R)

Interim measures – Public contracts – Tendering procedure – Rejection of tender – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Loss of opportunity – Lack of serious and irreparable harm – 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 – 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 11-14)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-23)

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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29-32)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 33)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures concerning call for tenders EuropeAid/127843/D/SER/KOS for the provision of support services to the customs and tax authorities in Kosovo.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 —

Conte and Others v Council

(Case T‑121/10)

‛Action for annulment — Fisheries — Conservation of fisheries resources — Introduction of a Community system of control, inspection and enforcement — Concept of regulatory act — Concept of legislative act — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged (Art. 263 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see paras 23, 24)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope except for legislative measures — Council regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1224/2009) (see paras 34, 36, 37, 47, 50, 53‑55)

3. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an action for annulment or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (Art. 6(1), third para., TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7)) (see paras 56-59)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Council regulation establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy — Action by fishermen and operators in the fish marketing sector — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 1224/2009) (see paras 61, 64-69)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1) and more particularly, Articles 9, 10, 14(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), 15, 17(1), 58(1), (2), (3) and (5), 59(2) and (3), 60(4) and (5), 62(1), 63(1), 64, 65, 66(1) and (3), 67(1), 68, 73(8), 92(2) and 103 of that regulation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Giovanni Conte; Casa del Pescatore Soc. coop. rl, Civitanova Marche; Guidotti Giovanni & Figli Snc; Organizzazione di produttori della pesca di Civitanova Marche Soc. coop. rl and Consorzio gestione mercato ittico Manfredonia Soc. coop. rl (Cogemim) are ordered to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 October 2010 – Nencini v Parliament

(Case T-431/10 R)

Interim measures – Member of the European Parliament – Recovery of allowances paid in reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses and travel costs – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – 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 8-9)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament finding an obligation to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Situation entailing mere inconvenience for the applicant – Decision without enforcement measures – No imminent risk of serious financial loss – No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision of the European Parliament finding an obligation to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members – Parliament needing to bring proceedings before a competent national court where voluntary payment refused – No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 19)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of a number of acts of the Parliament relating to the recovery of parliamentary allowances wrongly received.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 May 2010 – Noko Ngele v Commission

(Case T-15/10 R)

Interim Relief – Application for Interim Measures – Formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Application in connection with an action for compensation against a former Member and officials of the Commission – General Court not having jurisdiction (Arts 256 TFEU, 268 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU, second para.) (see paras 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 14)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 16)

Re:

Essentially, an application to have the activity of the ‘Centre pour le développement de l’entreprise (CDE)’ in Belgium declared illegitimate, to prevent the Commission and its agents from entering into financial relations with the CDE or from recognising the legitimacy of the CDE and to order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of money if the Commission recognises the legitimacy of that body.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.