ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Actionable measures

—

Acts challengeable by the author of a complaint denouncing State aid

—

Commission letter notifying the complainant of the Commission’s refusal to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU

—

Not included (Arts 108(2) TFEU, and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 21-25

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 29 November 2012 relating to a complaint by the applicants concerning the existence of State aid allegedly granted by the Greek authorities to OPAP.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Club Hotel Loutraki AE, Vivere Entertainment AE, Theros International Gaming, Inc., Elliniko Casino Kerkyras, Casino Rodos and Porto Carras AE are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP).

3. The Hellenic Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Lomnici v Parliament

(Case T‑650/13)

‛Action for annulment — Petition addressed to the European Parliament concerning the new law on Slovak citizenship — Petition declared admissible — Decision to close the procedure — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruling on the action to be taken on a petition declared admissible — Not included (Arts 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 44; Internal European Parliament Regulation, Art. 202) (see paras 31-40)

Re:

APPLICATION to annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 to declare Petition No 1298/2012 closed.

Operative part

1. The European Parliament’s request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected.

2. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Slovak Republic and Hungary.

4. Mr Zoltán Lomnici is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament.

5. The Slovak Republic and Hungary are ordered to bear their own costs.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2014 — Lomnici v Parliament

(Case T‑650/13)

‛Action for annulment — Petition addressed to the European Parliament concerning the new law on Slovak citizenship — Petition declared admissible — Decision to close the procedure — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Decision of the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions ruling on the action to be taken on a petition declared admissible — Not included (Arts 227 TFEU and 263 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 44; Internal European Parliament Regulation, Art. 202) (see paras 31-40)

Re:

APPLICATION to annul the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 17 October 2013 to declare Petition No 1298/2012 closed.

Operative part

1. The European Parliament’s request for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected.

2. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Slovak Republic and Hungary.

4. Mr Zoltán Lomnici is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Melitta France v Commission

(Case T‑224/13)

‛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.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2014 —

Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)

(Case T‑697/13)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-19)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 21)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Word mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 27-37)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 2272/2012‑2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2015 —

Real Express v OHIM — MIP Metro (real)

(Case T‑580/13)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark real — Earlier national figurative marks Real and Real mark — Rejection of the opposition — Rule 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95’

Procedure — 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 — General reference to documents annexed to the application — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), 130(1), and 132(1)) (see paras 30, 31)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2013 (Case R 1519/2012-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Real Express SRL and MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
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‑145/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:162), 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 (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 —

Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case T‑539/13)

‛Action for annulment — Seventh framework programme for research and technological development including demonstration activities (2007-2013) — MARE, Senior and ECRN projects — Recovery of a share of the financial contribution paid — Enforcement decision — Nature of the pleas relied on — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — No separate document — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 73-75)

2. 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 — None — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 76-78, 99-101, 115, 136, 138)

3. Actions for annulment — Action against a writ of execution — Decision open to challenge under Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Pleas relating to contractual stipulations and the applicable national law — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU, 288 TFEU and 299 TFEU) (see paras 84-91, 97, 116, 120, 123, 128)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4693 final of 17 July 2013 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 212411.89, plus interest, owed by the applicant in the context of the MARE, Senior and ECRN projects.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014 — Gmina Miasto Gdynia and Port Lotniczy Gdynia Kosakowo v Commission

(Case T‑215/14 R)

‛Interim proceedings — State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public finance granted by the local authorities to a regional airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — 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 — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 17,18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Decision addressed to the Member State and not to the beneficiary — Account taken of national implementing measures — Non-binding measures — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 288, fourth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37, 40-44)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Whether there exists any means of obtaining legal redress before the national court against national implementing measures — Power of the EU judicature to take such means of redress into consideration when assessing whether the application for interim measures is well founded — Not irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 46, 47, 51-54)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Public interest defended by the Commission and interest of the aid beneficiary — No exceptional circumstances — Primacy of the public interest (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 60-62, 65)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend operation of Commission Decision C(2014) 759 final of 11 February 2014 relating to measure SA.35388 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN and ex 2012/N) — Poland — Conversion of the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 —

Electrabel and Dunamenti Erőmű v Commission

(Case T‑40/14)

‛Action for damages — Aid awarded by the Hungarian authorities to certain electricity generators — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Limitation period — Inapplicability of Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Concept of continuous damage — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Limitation period — Expiry not constituting an absolute bar to proceeding — Limitation different, by nature, from a procedural time-limit — Time allowance for distance not applying to the said limitation period (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46(1); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 33, 34)

2. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Liability for a legislative act — Date of appearance of the prejudicial effects of the act (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 40, 41, 47)

Re:

ACTION for damages, based on the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage allegedly incurred on account of Commission Decision 2009/609/EC of 4 June 2008 on the State aid C 41/05 awarded by Hungary through Power Purchase Agreements (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 53).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Schaeffler Technologies v Commission

(Case T‑287/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Schaeffler Technologies v Commission

(Case T‑287/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 23 February 2015 — Seven for all mankind v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

(Case T‑505/14)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND — Earlier Community and international figurative marks Seven — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

Actions for annulment — Grounds — Action brought against a new decision of an institution implementing an annulment judgment of the General Court — Questioning the conclusions of the General Court in the annulment judgment having become res judicata — Clearly unfounded ground of appeal (see paras 27, 28, 32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 April 2014 (Case R 1277/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven SpA and Seven For All Mankind LLC.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 7 January 2015 — Freitas v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑185/14)

‛Action for annulment — Directive 2013/55/EU — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Exclusion of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities from the scope of application of Directive 2005/36 — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. 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 — Directive 2013/55 amending Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications — Not included (Arts 46 TFEU, 53(1) TFEU, 62 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24-29)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Directive 2013/55 amending Directive 2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications — Exclusion from the scope of Directive 2005/36 of notaries appointed by official act of the public authorities — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36) (see paras 32-40)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (‘the IMI Regulation’) (OJ 2012 L 354, p. 132).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications of the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the European Commission, the Ordem dos Notários (Portuguese notarial professional body) and of the Conseil national des barreaux (French National Bar Council) to intervene.