ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 20 August 2014 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T‑532/14 R)

‛Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — List of persons and entities to which those measures apply — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency — Weighing of interests’

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) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22, 23)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Decision to freeze funds in the context of restrictive measures against Libya — Competence of the EU judicature to annul the measure, at the earliest, after the expiry of the period for lodging an appeal — Interest of the applicant not capable of protection by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 264, second para., TFEU and 278 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 107(3); Council Decisions 2011/137/CFSP and 2011/178/CFSP) (see paras 30, 34-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53) and Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24) in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Erbslöh v Commission

(Case T‑296/14 R)

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

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

Erbslöh v Commission

(Case T‑296/14 R)

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 February 2015 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T‑812/14 R)

‛Interim measures — State aid — Financial sector — Aid granted in the context of the resolution of a banking insolvency — Decision not to raise objections — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency’

1. Judicial proceedings — Treatment of cases before the General Court — Protection given to parties against misuse of pleadings and other procedural documents — General principle of the sound administration of justice — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 116(2); Instructions to the Registrar of the General Court, Art. 5(8)) (see paras 14, 16)

2. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18, 19)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Burden resting solely on the person entitled to bring the action in the main proceedings — Need to plead the risk of suffering that damage personally — Examination of the admissibility of the main action by the court hearing the interim application — Scope (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 22, 24, 25, 34)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof resting with the party seeking the interim measure — Risk of fundamental rights being undermined — Not sufficient to constitute serious damage — Assessment according to the circumstances of the case (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 29)

5. State aid — Commission decision — Assessment of legality by reference to the information available at the time the decision adopted (Art. 107 TFEU) (see para. 31)

6. Application for interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application — Formal requirements — Pleas establishing a prima facie case for the measures applied for — No concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence, as to the serious and irreparable damage alleged (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 33)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 not to raise objections to State aid SA.39250 (2014/N), notified by Portugal, for the resolution of Banco Espírito Santo SA.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 — Alsharghawi v Council

(Case T‑532/14)

‛Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Libya — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Starting point — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Lawfulness (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1); Council Decisions 2011/137CFSP, Art. 9(3), and 2011/178/CFSP) (see paras 15, 18-20, 22)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/137/CFSP of 28 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya (OJ 2011 L 58, p. 53), and, secondly, Council Decision 2011/178/CFSP of 23 March 2011 amending Decision 2011/137 (OJ 2011 L 78, p. 24), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2015 — Guja v Poland

(Case T‑823/14)

‛Actions for damages — Manifest lack of jurisdiction’

Actions for damages — Subject-matter — Compensation for damage allegedly suffered by reason of decisions given by national courts — General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction (Arts 268 TFEU and 340, second and third paras, TFEU; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see paras 5-8)

Re:

ACTION for compensation in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of certain decisions issued by the Polish courts.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2015 —

Arvanitis and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑350/14)

‛Application for failure to act and for damages — Winding up of Olympiaki Aeroporia (OA) — Harm allegedly suffered by the temporary staff of OA due to the failure of the defendants to ensure the application of EU law upon redundancy — Causal link between the alleged harm and the defendants’ conduct not substantiated — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for failure to act — Institution not called upon to act — Inadmissibility (Art. 265(2) TFEU) (see para. 12)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 17)

Re:

APPLICATION for (i) a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to act by not ensuring that certain rules of EU law were correctly applied when the applicants were made redundant and (ii) for damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of that failure to act and of the adoption of measures by the Greek authorities pursuant to certain decisions of the Commission, the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Defects in notification — Possibility of OHIM establishing the legal effects of regular notification — Formal requirements — Absence (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68) (see paras 20-22)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by fax — Calculation of time-limits — Date of receipt (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), 65(1), and 70(2)) (see paras 25, 28)

3. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept composed of objective and subjective elements — Limits (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 36, 37)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1530/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GREEN BEANS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Monster Energy Company is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 March 2016 —

Larymnis Larko v Commission

(Case T‑576/14)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Action against a Commission decision finding aid incompatible with the internal market — No direct interest of a creditor claiming prejudice to his economic and financial interests — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17, 18, 23-26)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Admissibility criteria — Interest in bringing proceedings — Locus standi — Conditions cumulative in nature — Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 28)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 1805 of 27 March 2014 declaring that the sale of some of the assets exploited by Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA did not constitute State aid [SA. 37954 (2013/N)].

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 November 2015 —

One of Us and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑561/14)

‛Law governing the institutions — European Citizens’ Initiative — Commission communication pursuant to Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which the measure at issue was published — Calculation — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Arts 101(2), and 102(1) and (2); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 211/2011) (see paras 21-24)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Communication COM(2014) 355 final of 28 May 2014 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘One of us’ and, in the alternative, of Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against Article 10(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2017 —

BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission

(Case T‑812/14)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Portuguese authorities for the resolution of the financial institution Banco Espírito Santo — Creation and capitalisation of a Bridge Bank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Need for an actual and current interest—Decision of the Commission declaring a State aid, consisting in an injection of capital into a bank, compatible with the internal market—Action by subordinate creditors of that bank—No legal effect of the annulment of the decision on the decision taken by a Member State to create a bridge bank and not to include in its assets obligations of the type held by the applicants—Failure to establish an advantage procured by the annulment of the decision—No interest in bringing proceedings—Inadmissibility

(Arts 107 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU)

(see paras 24-36)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 on State aid SA.39250 (2014/N) — Portugal — Resolution of Banco Espírito Santo.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other parties whose names are set out in the Annex to this order are ordered to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the present proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 —

IREPA v Commission and Court of Auditors

(Case T‑825/14)

‛Action for annulment — Fishing — Italian National Fisheries Data Collection Programme for the period 2009-2010 — Recovery of a part of the advances paid to the applicant — Court of Auditors’ preliminary report — Measure not open to challenge — Preparatory measure — Pre-information letters — Debit note — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Report of the Court of Auditors constituting a summary of preliminary findings concerning irregularities found on an audit — Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 30)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — No brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility (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 para. 31)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Debit note of the Commission, addressed to a Member State, demanding repayment of ineligible costs financed by the Union — Letters from the Commission informing the Member State of the conclusions of the audit of the Court of Auditors and of its intention to recover the ineligible expenses — Partner of the Member State in implementing the national programme as main beneficiary of the financial contribution in question not directly affected — Financial consequences of the debit note passed on to the said partner — Irrelevant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1078/2008, Art. 9) (see paras 37-45)

4. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Acts requiring national application measures — Natural or legal persons able to resort to a request for a preliminary ruling for an assessment of validity — Obligation on Member States to establish the necessary remedies to ensure effective judicial protection (Art. 4 TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 267 TFEU) (see paras 48-50)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision containing the debit note of 30 September 2014 issued by the Commission for the recovery of the amount of EUR 458347.35, the Court of Auditors’ report of 27 February 2013, the Commission’s letters of 12 July 2013 and 6 August 2014 and of any other prior, related, or in any event subsequent measure, even unknown, affecting the applicant’s legal and financial situation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
89

In that regard, irrespective of whether, in the present case, the Court is bound by that order, it must be pointed out that, in any event, since the application giving rise to the order of 16 July 2015 in Yanukovych v Council (T‑172/15, not published, EU:T:2015:569) and the statement of modification in the present case were lodged in identical circumstances and conditions, there is no reason – and the applicant does not advance any – to treat the two situations differently. In addition, contrary to what the applicant claims, it is clear from well established case-law that modification of the application is equivalent to the bringing of a new action by means of an application (see paragraph 80 above). The fact that the applicant did not have the opportunity to express her opinion in favour of the admissibility of the action in the case giving rise to the order of 16 July 2015 in Yanukovych v Council (T‑172/15, not published, EU:T:2015:569) and the fact that she did not consider it appropriate to appeal against the order closing the proceedings in that case are irrelevant for the purposes of assessing the admissibility of the statement of modification. In particular, in the present case, the Court, as it had done in the case giving rise to the order of 16 July 2015 in Yanukovych v Council (T‑172/15, not published, EU:T:2015:569), merely finds that the statement of modification was lodged in the name of a deceased person.
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 June 2015 —

Buga v Parliament and Others

(Case T‑241/15 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Directive on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility of the main action — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see para. 6)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility criteria — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Measure not producing binding legal effects — Measure not capable of being the subject-matter of an annulment action — Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 7-9)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Burden of proof on the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/60, Art. 3(6)) (see para. 14)

4. Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 15)

5. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief — Issuing directions to third parties — Limits (Arts 256 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 17, 20)

6. Application for interim measures — Interim measures — Admissibility criteria — Application seeking measures outside the scope of the main proceedings — Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 18)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures seeking to order the Romanian authorities to suspend the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant before a national court.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.