ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 15-17)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24, 30-31)

3. Application 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 – Lodging an additional document to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the interim procedure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see paras 26, 28)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 35)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Damage having already occurred – Damage of a purely hypothetical nature – Not included (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-38,40)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension, first, of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 claiming damages from the applicant of EUR 16 000 and reserving the right to claim further amounts by way of damages and, secondly, of its decision the same day imposing on the applicant the administrative penalty of exclusion from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a provisional period of three months.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Application for partial suspension of the operation of Decision 2010/787 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position – No interest in bringing an action (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 17-21)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Application seeking measures outside the context of the dispute in the main proceedings – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 22-24)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Application for partial suspension of operation of a decision – Decision 2010/787 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines – Suspension involving a modification of the substance of the decision – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 26-34)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Concept – Preponderance of the public interest over private interests (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 36-39, 41-43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial suspension of operation of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24) and, in the alternative, application for full suspension of operation of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 – 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 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – None (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-25)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures, including suspension of operation of point 19 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), in so far as the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are frozen includes an entity designated under the name of ‘Safa Nicu’.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act – 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 14-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Loss capable of subsequent remedy by an action for compensation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-24, 26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-34)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage linked to infringement of certain fundamental rights – Right to property and right to free exercise of an economic activity – No absolute protection (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, in essence, the suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), to the extent that those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission

(Case T-261/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Commission decision finding, at the conclusion of the formal investigation procedure, that aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by the main shareholder of the beneficiary undertaking — Mere shareholding in an undertaking and involvement in the aid investigation procedure not in itself sufficient to give rise to a right to bring proceedings — No present or future threat to solvency — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 16-17, 21, 24, 26-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos SA (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Goldfields Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by Ellinikos Chrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomixanias Chrysou.

Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission

(Case T-261/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Chrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Commission decision finding, at the conclusion of the formal investigation procedure, that aid incompatible with the internal market — Action by the main shareholder of the beneficiary undertaking — Mere shareholding in an undertaking and involvement in the aid investigation procedure not in itself sufficient to give rise to a right to bring proceedings — No present or future threat to solvency — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 16-17, 21, 24, 26-29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Chrysos SA (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. European Goldfields Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.
Under the first paragraph of Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, applicable to proceedings before the General Court pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that Statute, an application for revision of a judgment may be made only on discovery of one or more facts which are of such a nature as to be decisive factors, and which, when the judgment was given, were unknown to the court hearing the application and to the party claiming the revision. Under the second paragraph of that article, it is only where the court finds that a new fact exists, recognises that it is of such a character as to lay the case open to revision and declares the application admissible on that ground that it can examine the substance of the case.

Consequently, revision is not an appeal procedure but an exceptional review procedure that allows the authority of res judicata attaching to a final judgment to be called in question on the basis of the findings of fact relied upon by the court. Revision presupposes the discovery of elements of a factual nature which existed prior to the judgment and which were unknown at that time to the court which delivered it as well as to the party applying for revision and which, had the court been able to take them into consideration, could have led it to a different determination of the proceedings. Moreover, in the light of the exceptional nature of the revision procedure, the conditions governing the admissibility of an application for revision of a judgment are to be interpreted strictly.

An application for revision in support of which is put forward a fact known to the applicant for revision before the judgment was pronounced is therefore manifestly inadmissible.

(see paras 11, 12, 22)

See:

16 April 2012, T‑40/07 P-REV and T‑62/07 P-REV de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 12 and the case-law cited therein
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-37/11)

‛Action for annulment — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 — Recovery of part of the amount paid — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility’

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Reference in the application to a measure preliminary to that challenged — Reference not excluding the possibility of identifying the subject-matter of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 25-27)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Commission debt note recovering sums unjustifiably paid, following the final report of the Commission on clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006 — Debit note merely an implementing measure of an earlier decision, the obligation to repay having arisen not at the time of the issuing of the debit note but at the time of the adoption of the final report — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility (2003 Act of Accession, Art. 35) (see paras 33, 34, 40-42, 60)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of debit note No 3241011280 issued by the Commission on 28 October 2010 after the final report on the clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 May 2013 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v ECDC

(Case T-577/11)

‛Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision to the ECDC of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see para. 12)

2. EU public contracts — Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders — Discretion of the institutions — Judicial review — Limits (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 16, 19)

3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision, in the award of a public contract, not to accept a tender — Immediate communication of the grounds for rejecting the unsuccessful tenderer and provision, on demand, of additional information on the grounds for the rejection (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 100(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Art. 149(3)) (see paras 21-25)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the ECDC’s decision of 25 August 2011 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the tendering procedure PROC/2001/041 concerning the provision of systematic review and expert guidance services on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens (OJ 2011/S 109-179084).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
An association cannot in principle bring an action for annulment unless it can claim certain special circumstances, inter alia of a procedural nature, or unless the members which it represents or some of those members are in a position to bring an admissible action. The action must be likely, by its result, to procure an advantage for the party which brought it. Moreover, the condition laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, that a natural or legal person must be directly concerned by the decision being challenged, requires inter alia that the contested measure must directly affect the legal situation of the individual.

That is not the case with an action by a group of Edam manufacturers and distributors against Regulation No 1121/2010, entering a designation in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Edam Holland (PGI)]. Since that regulation clearly states that the word ‘Edam’ may continue to be used, annulment of the contested regulation would not be of any advantage to the applicant’s members. Moreover, since Regulation No 1121/2010 provides that the name ‘Edam’ may continue to be used for the marketing of cheeses, that regulation does not directly affect the legal situation of that group’s members.

Similarly, with regard to the argument that that regulation entails a risk that certain packaging including the word ‘Edam’, used with illustrations alluding to the Netherlands, might be regarded as contrary to Regulation No 510/2006, on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the annulment of Regulation No 1121/2010 would not be of any advantage to the group’s members, in so far as such annulment would not remove the obligation that exists under EU law not to mislead consumers as to the origin or provenance of food.

Finally, no unfavourable effect of Regulation No 1121/2010 on the legal position of the group’s members can be inferred from the fact that producers who are entitled to use the quality label for the protected geographical indication ‘Edam Holland’ have a competitive advantage. The regulation is intended not to abolish a right held by the group’s members, but to grant a new right to all operators, including the group’s members if they so wish, whose products comply with the specification set out in that regulation.

(see paras 18, 22, 24, 29-31, 38, 43, 45)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — Gobierno de Aragón and Others v Council

(Case T‑150/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Decision concerning aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Partial annulment — Non-severability — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — Severability of the contested provisions — Provisions of a Council decision concerning aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines — Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the decision — Requirement not met — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1407/2002; Council Decision 2010/787) (see paras 20, 21, 26-29, 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Gobierno de Aragón (Spain), the Principado de Asturias (Spain) and the Junta de Castilla y León (Spain) are ordered to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 – Cemex and Others v Commission

(Case T-292/11 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Request for information – Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of urgency

1. 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – 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 16-17)

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

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 29)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from a Commission decision rejecting a request not, on account of excessive workload, to communicate documents – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – None where damage of a purely hypothetical nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24, 31-33)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 40-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2001) 2360 final of 30 March 2011 in proceedings pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 – Cement and related products).

Operative part

1. The application for suspension of operation is dismissed.