ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2018 –

Bruel v Commission and Others

(Case T‑793/17)

(Action for annulment and damages — Measure adopted by the Head of Section of the EU Delegation to Algeria in the context of a public procurement procedure for the provision of services — Decision requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert — Termination of the agreement between the successful tendering company and the applicant following that decision — No capacity as defendant — Act not open to challenge — No sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Causal link — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Action for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — Union delegation — Not a body, office or agency of the EU — Measures adopted by the head of an EU delegation in the context of a tendering procedure — Measures attributable to the Commission (Arts 221 TFEU and 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012; Council Decision 2010/427) (see paras 27, 28)

2. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Annulment of a measure which is part of a purely contractual context — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU, 274 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 30-35)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Injury — Causal link — One of the conditions not satisfied — Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 50-53)

4. EU law — Principles — Principle of sound administration — Scope — Applicability to contractual relationships binding on the European Union in respect of third parties — Not included (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41) (see paras 56, 57)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Causal link — Burden of proof (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 66)

6. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Failure sufficiently to state the reasons on which an EU act is based — Not included (Art. 340, second para. TFEU) (see para. 68)

Re:

First, application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter of 25 September 2017 requesting the replacement of the applicant as an expert in the context of an agreement for the provision of services concluded between the successful tendering company and the applicant and, secondly, application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the of the General Court of 3 May 2018 –

VQ v ECB

(Case T‑203/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Tasks conferred on the ECB by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Powers of the ECB — Specific supervision powers — Administrative penalties — Publication — Application for suspension of operation — 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—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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 7-10)

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—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—Lack of any urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 13-17, 19, 24, 30, 31)

3. Application for interim measures—Admissibility criteria—Application—Formal requirements—Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 18, 20)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a suspension of operation of Decision ECB-SSM-2018-ESSAB-4, SNC 2016-0026 of the Governing Council of the ECB of 14 March 2018 relating to a pecuniary penalty and the publication thereof on the ECB’s website.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2018 –

Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T‑337/18 R II)

(Interim relief — Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Biocidal products — Active substance PHMB (1415; 4.7) — Approval refused — Application for interim measures — New application — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of bringing a new application — Condition — New facts — Meaning

(Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 160)

(see paras 7-9)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018 L 102, p. 21), and, secondly, the adoption of any other appropriate interim measure.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
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. 156(4))

(see paras 9-12)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 February 2019 —

ND and OE v Commission

(Case T‑581/18)

(Action for annulment — Alleged discrimination between European officials and other national residents as regards the method of calculating the net remuneration determining the rate of certain social benefits — Coordination of social security systems — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to initiate infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal by the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings — Not included (Arts 258 and 263 TFEU) (see paras 14-18)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings — To be exercised at its discretion — Procedural position of complainants differing from their procedural position in competition matters (Arts 101, 102 and 258 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004, Arts 5 to 9) (see para. 22)

Re

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 27 July 2018, notified to the applicants on 30 July 2018, by which the Commission decided to take no further action on their complaint against the City of Luxembourg, the State of Luxembourg and the Administrative Court of Luxembourg.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 March 2019 –

Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)

(Case T‑326/18)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES — Earlier national figurative mark Carajillo — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Account taken by the General Court of matters of law and fact not previously raised before the departments of EUIPO — Precluded (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(2)) (see para. 34)

2. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Opposition proceedings — Examination restricted to the submissions of the parties (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(1)) (see para. 35)

3. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 94(1), first sentence) (see paras 40, 41, 46)

4. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal to a Board of Appeal — Competence of the Boards of Appeal — New full examination of the merits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 71(1)) (see para. 47)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Figurative marks CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES and Carajillo (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 57, 58, 65, 72)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 59)

7. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Similarity of the marks concerned — Criteria for assessment (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 63)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 (Case R 2104/2017-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Herrero Torres and DZ Licores.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings — Introduction of new pleas during the proceedings — Conditions — Pleas based on matters which have come to light in the course of the procedure — None — Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 84(1))

(see paras 90, 91)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2019 –

Dickmanns v EUIPO

(Case T‑538/18)

(Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Purely confirmatory measure — Period within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment — Action brought against a decision confirming an earlier decision that has become final — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision — No new element in relation to the earlier decision and no re-examination of the situation of the addressee of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 28-31, 37, 40, 41)

2. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 45)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 December 2017, and ‘if need be’ the decisions of 28 November 2013 and 4 June 2014 of EUIPO terminating the applicant’s employment contract as of 30 June 2018, and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Weighing-up of all the competing interests — 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(4))

(see paras 16-19, 107)
Non-contractual liability — Injury/damage — Assessment — Insufficient evidence for the EU judicature to rule in the context of the judgment finding the existence of unlawful conduct by the Union — Determination of the compensation deferred to a later stage of the proceedings

(Art. 340, second para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see para. 35)
Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Conditions relating to a signatory – Status of a third party in relation to the parties – Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party – Manifest inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, third para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 51(1))

(see paras 33, 34)
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 12, 14, 15)
Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature — Balancing of all the interests involved — 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 15-17)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Souruh v Council

(Case T‑137/19)

(Action for damages — Common Foreign and Security Policy —Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of jurisdiction)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), and its subsequent implementing acts, and following Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019, amending Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Possibility of ruling without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 129 and 130)

(see paras 11, 12)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2020 –

WV v EEAS

(Case T‑43/19)

(Action for compensation — Civil service — Civil servants — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Admissibility — Obligation to rule on pleas directed against the decision rejecting the complaint — Pleas devoid of independent content or purely confirmatory decision — None (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 53, 54)

2. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening through a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Not permissible (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 59)

3. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 72)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment, of the EEAS’s decision of 28 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation and, in so far as necessary, the EEAS’s decision of 26 October 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 26 June 2018; and second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of the EEAS’s conduct towards her.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2020 –

Necci v Commission

(Case T‑129/19)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Contract staff — Social security — JSIS — Rejection of the application for membership — Out of time — Substantial new fact — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials — Prior administrative complaint — Time limits — Mandatory — Claim barred by lapse of time — Reopening — Condition — Substantial new fact — Meaning (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 117) (see paras 36-39, 42, 48)

2. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official –Meaning — Purely confirmatory measure — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 40, 41)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 18 April 2018 implicitly rejecting the application for membership of the sickness insurance scheme common to the institutions of the European Communities (JSIS), made by the applicant on 18 December 2017.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Claudio Necci shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 July 2020 –

Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA

(Case T‑640/19)

(Action for annulment – REACH – Substances of very high concern – Establishment of a candidate list of substances for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 – Decision identifying 4-tert-butylphenol as a substance meeting the criteria for inclusion in the list – Objection of inadmissibility – Act not open to challenge – Act merely implementing the decision – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Act of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) including a substance as a substance of very high concern in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation No 1907/2006 – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 59) (see paras 28-30, 33, 34, 36, 41-43)

2. Action for annulment – Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act – Inadmissibility – Concept of confirmatory decision – Act of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) including a substance as a substance of very high concern in the list of substances identified for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV of Regulation No 1907/2006 – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFUE; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Art. 59) (see paras 44-47)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Decision ED/71/2019 of ECHA in so far as it includes 4-tert-butyphenol as a substance of very high concern in the list of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Commission.

3. Sasol Germany GmbH, SI Group – Béthune and BASF SE shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), with the exception of those relating to the applications to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 March 2020 –

Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA

(Case T‑236/19)

(Action for annulment – Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) – Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) – Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria – Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision – Application submitted by a de facto association – Capacity to be party to legal proceedings – No evidence of legal existence – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Locus standi – Action by an unincorporated association, with no legal personality and lacking the autonomy necessary to act as a responsible body in legal matters – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU)

(see paras 31-36)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment or variation, first, of the EACEA’s decision of 25 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant in respect of its call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) and, secondly, of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 572 final of 4 February 2019, rejecting the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA).

3. There is no need to rule on the EACEA’s application for leave to intervene.

4. Le Comité du Douzelage de Houffalize shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the EACEA, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.