ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Ebro Foods v Commission

(Case T-234/10)

Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 27)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Assessment at the time the action was brought (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 30)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Person belonging to a closed circle of persons — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 31, 33-35)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
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 – 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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The application for suspension of operation is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 9-10)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 14)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Alcide Djédjé is ordered to bear his own costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 – Lodging of an additional pleading to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with proceedings for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 5-6, 15-16)

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 8-9, 12-13)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Main action seeking annulment of a Commission decision ordering repayment of State aid – Existence before the national court of remedies against the national implementing measures – Possibility of avoiding serious and irreparable damage (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 14)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 4903 final of 13 July 2011 declaring incompatible with the internal market the aid granted by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry in the form of rescheduling of debts owed to the State (State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009) in so far as that decision orders the recovery of that aid from the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Statements which are too general and imprecise to be legally assessed must be regarded as manifestly inadmissible.

It follows from Article 257 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 11 of Annex I to the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, and Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal. That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which does not include any argument specifically identifying the error of law allegedly vitiating the judgment or order in question.

It follows from Article 11 of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, which adopts the wording of Article 58 of that statute, that an appeal is limited to points of law and lies only on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant, or infringement of Union law by the Tribunal.

The Civil Service Tribunal accordingly has exclusive jurisdiction to find the facts, except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it, and to assess those facts. The assessment of the facts does not, therefore, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to the Civil Service Tribunal, constitute a question of law which is subject as such to review by the appeal court.

Such distortion must be obvious from the documents in the Court’s file, without there being any need to carry out a new assessment of the facts and the evidence, still less to take new evidence into account.

(see paras 44-46)

24 October 2011, T‑213/10 P P v Parliament [2010] ECR-SC, paras 46 to 48 and the case-law cited
Keywords



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 10-11)

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 – Financial viability (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Loss of opportunity through exclusion from a tendering procedure – Loss not in itself constituting serious damage – Assessment of actual situation (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20-21)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity through exclusion from a tendering procedure – Damage capable of full remedy in the context of an action for compensation (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant – Applicant’s own interests affected – Interests of employees of the applicant company affected – Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 26)
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 June 2012 — Transports Schiocchet — Excursions v Council and Commission

(Case T-203/11)

‛Non-contractual liability — Coach and bus services between Member States — Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — None — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 27)

2. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy — Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Requirement of a clear and serious breach of the limits of the wide discretion of the EU legislature (Art. 340, second para; TFEU) (see para. 28)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Omissions of EU institutions — Requirement that a legal duty to act be disregarded (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 37-40)

4. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy — Sufficiently serious breach of a higher rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Requirement of a clear and serious breach of the limits of the wide discretion of the EU legislature — Late submission by the Commission of a legislative proposal in the area concerned — No liability (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 41, 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage purportedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the application of the system laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 — BytyOKD v Commission

(Case T-559/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Sale by the Czech Republic of its minority shareholding in the company OKD as part of a privatisation — Decision finding no State aid — Professional association — No individual concern — Concept of party concerned — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114(1), (3) and (4)) (see para. 17)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision finding no State aid in respect of a national measure without opening the formal investigation procedure — Person concerned for the purposes of Article 108(2) TFEU — Tenants’ association — Conditions — Action by an association constituted by a category of persons not themselves individually concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999) (see paras 20-31, 38, 45, 46)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4927 final of 13 July 2011 concerning the sale to Karbon Invest a.s. of the minority shareholding of the Czech State in OKD a.s. and declaring that that sale did not constitute State aid (State aid No SA.25076 (2011/NN) (OJ 2011 C 225, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Sdružení nájemníků BytyOKD.cz is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2012 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-320/11)

‛Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Out of time — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Act published and notified the same day — Irrelevant (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU) (see paras 15-19, 21, 23, 24)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/192/EU of 28 March 2011 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by Hungary under the programme for the support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2004 (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 14).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2014 —

AQ v Parliament

(Case T‑168/11)

‛Action for compensation — Compensation for damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition — Request to initiate an inquiry into alleged irregularities in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application — Simple reference to annexes — Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 12-15)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant following the decision of the Parliament to take no further action on his petition requesting the opening of an inquiry into alleged irregularities in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr AQ is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Parliament.
1.

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Determination of the subject-matter of the dispute — Modification of the initial pleadings at the stage of observations on the objection of inadmissibility — Not permissible (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1) and 48(2)) (see paras 21, 22, 26, 27)
Order of the President of the General Court of 19 May 2011 – Dagher v Council and Italy

(Case T-218/11 R)

Interim relief – Application for interim measures – Manifest lack of jurisdiction – Inadmissibility

1. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application for interim measures directed against a Member State adjunct to a main action against the Council – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 4-5)

2. Application for interim measures – Application linked to an action brought against a Member State – General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see para. 5)

3. Application for interim measures – Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief – Issuing of directions to third parties (Arts 256 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 7)

Re:

APPLICATION for: (1) an order that the Council and the Italian Republic issue a visa to the applicant; (2) suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 28, p. 32) and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 28, p. 60); and (3) damages in compensation for loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch as it is brought against the Italian Republic.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2012 —

Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission



(Case T-379/11)

Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances — Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Commission decision laying down transitional rules for the whole Union concerning the harmonised allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Action by an association representing the interests of the European steelmaking industry — Undertakings represented not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Art. 10a) (see paras 22, 23, 26-31)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope save for legislative measures — Commission decision laying down transitional rules for the whole Union concerning the harmonised allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Included — Act entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the said treaty provision (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 10a and 11(1)) (see paras 34-37, 48-50, 52)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.