ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2019 –

AlpaSuri v Commission

(Case T‑254/19 R)

(Interlocutory proceedings — Import of alpacas — Application for interim measures — No urgency)

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 13-16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage based on the happening of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to demonstrate urgency — The act in question must constitute the determining cause of the damage claimed (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 20, 21)

3. 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 — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment in context of litigation concerning the import of animals and veterinary certification — No proof of loss — No urgency (Arts 268, 278, 279 and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3); Commission Regulation No 206/2010, Art. 3(b) and Annex 1) (see paras 22, 23, 26, 29, 32-35)

4. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — Pleas in law not set out in the application — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 25, 27, 28)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking interim measures authorising the import of alpacas into the territory of the European Union from Canada.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 October 2019 –

United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T‑188/19)

(Action for annulment — Research and technological development and space — Seventh framework programme of the Union — Audit — Failure to fill out work timesheets — Personnel costs declared ineligible — Decision of the Commission to adopt the audit report as final — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Reclassification of the action — Conditions — Applicant not having expressly requested reclassification — Action not based on any plea claiming infringement of the rules governing the contractual relationship (Arts 263, 272 and 288 TFEU) (see paras 20, 28-30)

2. Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for a vested and present interest — Assessment at the time when the action was brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 37, 38, 40)

3. Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Natural or legal persons — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Interest relating to future and uncertain situations — Not included (Art. 263 TFUE) (see para. 39)

4. Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Recovery of debts due to the Union from third parties — Financial regulation — Request for reimbursement in the form of a debit note — Admissibility (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002) (see para. 49)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that, in adopting as final the Final Audit Report, bearing reference number 14-BA 226-013 concerning the implementation of the Combine, EUFAR and THOR grant agreements the beneficiary of which is the Met Office, the national meteorological service attached, within the United Kingdom Government, to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Commission failed correctly to interpret and apply the contractual provisions relating to those projects.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2019 —

Garriga Polledo and Others v Parliament

(Joined Cases T‑102/19 and T‑132/19)

(Action for annulment — Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Amendment of the additional voluntary pension scheme — Regulatory act — Implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Locus standi — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see para. 24)

2. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Concept of regulatory act within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 26-28)

3. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures — Concept — Criteria for assessment (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 29-32, 35-38, 43, 45)

4. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of individual concern to them — Criteria (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 58-64)

5. Action for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 65, 66)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 10 December 2018 amending the Implementing Measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (OJ 2018 C 466, p.8).

Operative part

1. Cases T‑102/19 and T‑132/19 are joined for the purpose of the present order.

2. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2019 –

Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission

(Case T‑210/19)

(Action for annulment — Common agricultural policy — Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin — Refusal of the application for the adoption of implementing acts — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant's legal situation — Letter from the Commission rejecting a request for the adoption of implementing acts in the milk and milk products sector for a product benefiting from a protected designation of origin — Not included — Addressee’s action inadmissible (Arts 106(3) and 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1308/2013, Art. 150(8)) (see paras 35-39, 48, 49)

2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Binding rules relating to the regulation of the supply of cheese benefiting from a protected designation of origin — Right of a natural or legal person to request the adoption of implementing acts requiring the repeal, by the national authorities concerned, of rules adopted with a view to such a regulation — None (Art. 39 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1308/2013, Art. 150) (see paras 42-46)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 6 February 2019 (Ares(2019) 677860) refusing the applicants’ application for (i) a declaration as to the alleged infringement by the Italian authorities of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671) and of Article 101 TFEU; and (ii) the adoption by the Commission of implementing acts, on the basis of Article 150(8) of that regulation, requiring that the Italian Republic repeal rules relating to the regulation of the supply of Parmigiano Reggiano cheese for the period 2017-2019.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Application for interim relief – 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), 278, 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 28-31)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 31 January 2020 –

Irish Wind Farmers’ Association and Others v Commission

(Case T‑6/19)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Tax advantages granted by Ireland to fossil fuel producers — Letter from the Commission — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment by reference to objective criteria (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 31, 32)

2. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Letter from the Commission containing a preliminary and provisional assessment on the existence of State aid — Precluded (Arts 108 and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Arts 4 and 24(2)) (see paras 33-39, 41-55)

3. Judicial proceedings — Costs — Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously — Conduct of an institution making a dispute more likely (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 135(2)) (see paras 57-61)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the Commission’s letter of 25 October 2018 concerning State aid allegedly granted by Ireland to fossil fuel producers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 – Unambiguous wording of the form of order sought by the applicant

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 34, 35)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 –

Lípidos Santiga v Commission

(Case T‑561/19)

(Action for annulment – Energy – Directive (EU) 2018/2001 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources – Limit on biofuels and biomass fuels produced from food and feed crops – Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 – Definition of raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk – Palm oil – Standing to bring proceedings – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Regulatory acts – Acts not entailing implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly – Concept of direct concern – Criteria – Act having direct effects on the legal situation of the applicant – Commission Delegated Regulation establishing raw materials presenting a high indirect land-use change (ILUC) risk – Applicant company not demonstrating that its legal situation has been directly affected – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2018/2001, Art. 26(2); Commission Delegated Regulation 2019/807) (see paras 21-23, 28-43, 48, operative part 1)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Regulatory acts – Acts not entailing implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly – Concept of direct concern – Criteria – Act likely to have an influence on the material situation of the applicant – Criterion not conclusive (Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU) (see paras 44-46)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019 supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels (OJ 2019 L 133, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts – Commission Decision relating to the establishment of traffic distribution rules for national airports setting a priority for the allocation of time slots to certain air carriers – Included

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1008/2008, Art. 19; Council Regulation No 95/93)

(see paras 33-35)
2.

European Union public contracts – Tendering procedure – Obligation to comply with the principle of equal treatment of tenderers – Provision of services in the field of the organisation of communication activities on behalf of the Commission’s Representation in Greece – Error committed by the contracting authority in calculating coefficients of the call for tenders – Decision annulling the call for tenders – Action against that decision – Effects of annulment – Obligation of the contracting authority to have reference to the date of adoption of the annulled measure and to take into account the provisions in force on that date – Contracting authority bound by the tendering procedure affected by a calculation error – Rectification of calculation errors by the contracting authority in order to carry out a new assessment of bids submitted by tenderers – Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2018/1046, Arts 151, 160(1), 169(1) and (2), and 172) (see paras 31-38)
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 7 February 2020 –

Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij ‘Far-East’ v ECB

(Case T‑797/19 R)

(Interim measures — Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Decision to withdraw authorisation as a credit institution — Lack of urgency)

1. Application for interim relief — 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 — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 21-24)

2. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events — Insufficient to demonstrate urgency — Decision of the European Central Bank to withdraw a credit institution’s authorisation — Earlier decision of the credit institution providing for the surrender of authorisation and the liquidation of the institution — Lack of any urgency (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 26-28, 35, 59, 60, 62, 66, 72-76, 80-86)

3. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 30-34)

Re:

Suspension of the implementation of the decision of 14 November 2019, ref: ECB-SSM-2019-AT‑8, WHD-2019-0009 by which the European Central Bank withdrew the authorisation of Anglo Austrian AAB Bank AG as a credit institution from the date of notification of the decision.

Operative part

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Cancels the order of 20 November 2019, Anglo Austrian AAB Bank and Belegging-Maatschappij Far-East v BCE (T‑797/19 R, not published, EU:T:2019:801).
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2020 –

Lotto24 v EUIPO (LOTTO24)

(Case T‑38/20)

(EU trade mark – Application for EU figurative mark LOTTO24 – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Article 7(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Definition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 14, 15, 17)

2. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Aim – Need to preserve availability (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c) and (2)) (see para. 16)

3. EU trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service – Figurative mark LOTTO24 (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 30, 35, 36, 40, 41)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 November 2019 (Case R 1216/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign LOTTO24 as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings – Decision taken by way of reasoned order – Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126)

(see para. 10)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 –

United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T‑37/20)

(Action for annulment – EAGF and EAFRD – Time limit for bringing an action – Starting point – Notification and publication – No excusable error – Out of time – Inadmissibility)

Procedure – Time limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Meaning – Scope – Decision of the Commission excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under EAGF and EAFRD – Notification – Subsequent publication of the decision in the Official Journal – Irrelevant – Questions relating to the functioning and organisation of the services of the applicant – Irrelevant

(Arts 263, sixth para., and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU)

(see paras 17-20)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1835 of 30 October 2019 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2019 L 279, p. 98), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the United Kingdom.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Czech Republic and the French Republic.

3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 June 2021 –

TrekStor v EUIPO – Zagg (Protective cover for computer hardware)

(Case T‑565/20)

(Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a protective cover for computer hardware – Ground for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Article 25(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Request that witnesses be heard – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – Unauthorised use of a work protected under the copyright law of a Member State – Law of the Member State serving to define the procedures for acquiring and proving copyright (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 25(1)(f); Commission Regulation No 2245/2002, Art. 28(1)(b)(iii)) (see para. 18)

2. Community designs – Grounds for invalidity – No individual character – Design not giving the informed user a different overall impression from that produced by the earlier design – Representation of a protective cover for computer hardware (Council Regulation No 6/2002, Arts 6(1) and 25(1)(b)) (see paras 36, 37)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 (Case R 297/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between TrekStor and Zagg.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 April 2021 –

ZU v Commission

(Case T‑462/20)

(Action for annulment and for damages – Civil service – Officials – Request for information – Rejection of a complaint – No act adversely affecting the applicant – Action manifestly inadmissible)

1. Actions brought by officials – Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations – Definition – Request for information not requiring a decision by the administration – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1)) (see para. 36)

2. Actions brought by officials – Act adversely affecting an official – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects – Request for information not requiring a decision by the administration – Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(1)) (see paras 32-37)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking, in the first place, annulment, first, of the Commission’s letter of 5 September 2019 refusing to answer the applicant’s questions and, second, of the Commission’s letter of 6 April 2020 rejecting his complaint and, in the second place, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those measures.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.