ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Documents originating from a Member State — Power of the Member State to request the institution not to disclose documents — Competence of the institution — Review of the merit of the refusal of access having regard to the exceptions set out in that regulation — Scope — Obligation to state reasons (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 4(1) to (3) and 5, 7 and 8) (see paras 33, 34, 38-44, 47)

2. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of court proceedings — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paras 63, 64)

3. Institutions of the European Union — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Protection of court proceedings — Overriding public interest justifying the disclosure of documents — Concept — Subjective interest of the person concerned to participate in a national decision-making procedure — Exclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent) (see paras 72, 74-76)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 23 September 2011 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents concerning approval of the project to construct a port in Granadilla (Tenerife, Spain), sent by the Spanish authorities to the Commission pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Ecologistas en Acción-CODA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court of 13 July 2011 – N’Guessan v Council

(Case T-352/11)

Common Foreign and Security Policy – Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire – Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Out of time – Clear inadmissibility

1. 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 11-12)

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. 16)

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

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan is ordered to bear his own costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 September 2011 – Gollnisch v Parliament

(Case T-346/11 R)

Interim measures – Waiving of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament – 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 – Cumulative nature – Balancing of all the interests involved – Order of examination and method of verification – 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 11-13, 27)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – No undermining of the right freely to exercise the parliamentary mandate and the proper function of the Parliament – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16, 23-26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Account to be taken of the manifest illegality of the contested measure – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-19)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-22)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 21 June 2012 —

Hamas v Council



(Case T-531/11)

Annulment action — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Lis pendens

1. Proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see para. 15)

2. Proceedings — Pleas in the application — Modification in the course of proceedings — Assimilation to the bringing of an action by means of an application (see para. 16)

Re:

Initially, action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), and Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), in so far as the applicant organisation’s name is maintained on the list of persons, groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources laid down with a view to combating terrorism.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.
A prior administrative complaint and the action which follows must both be directed against an act adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of Articles 90(2) and 91(1) of the Staff Regulations. An act adversely affecting an official is one which produces legal effects which are binding on, and capable of affecting, directly and immediately, the interests of the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position.

In that regard, the categorisation as an act adversely affecting an official of a decision establishing his classification by step, reflected in his monthly salary statement, may not be challenged on the ground that it was not communicated in writing in accordance with Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. Although Article 25 of the Staff Regulations requires that any decision relating to a specific individual must at once be communicated to him in writing, the fact remains that communication is a measure subsequent to the decision, which pre-exists it. The communication of a decision is therefore not decisive in assessing whether that decision is an act adversely affecting an official. That is also borne out by Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, under which an act adversely affecting an official may also consist in failure to adopt a measure, which, by its very nature, is not communicated in writing by the institution.

Furthermore, while a salary statement, by its nature and purpose, does not, as such, have the characteristics of an act adversely affecting an official, since it merely expresses in financial terms the effect of earlier legal decisions concerning the official’s situation, the fact remains that, in procedural terms, a pay slip may constitute an act producing precise legal effects in respect of the person to whom it is addressed. The sending of the monthly salary statement has the effect of starting the time for bringing a complaint and an appeal against an administrative decision running, where that statement clearly shows the decision taken and its scope. That being so, pay slips, which are sent monthly and contain a statement of an official’s pecuniary rights, may constitute acts adversely affecting that official, against which a complaint and, if necessary, an appeal may be brought.

(see paras 21-23)

See:

15/73 to 33/73, 52/73, 53/73, 57/73 to 109/73, 116/73, 117/73, 123/73, 132/73 and 135/73 to 137/73 Kortner and Others v Council and Others [1974] ECR 177, para. 18; 204/85 Stroghili v Court of Auditors [1987] ECR 389, para. 6

T-562/93 Obst v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-247 and II-737, para. 23; T-113/95 Mancini v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-185 and II-543, para. 23; T-391/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-269 and II-787, para. 34; T-232/97 Becret-Danieau and Others v Parliament [1998] ECR-SC I-A-157 and II-495, paras 31 and 32; T-354/03 Reggimenti v Parliament [2005] ECR-SC I-A-33 and II-147, paras 38 and 39; T-4/05 Strack v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-83 and II-A-2-361, para. 35
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

EU public contracts — Tender procedure — Award of contracts — Exclusion of tenderers having made false statements during the procedure — Applicable at the stage of awarding the contract and not thereafter (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 94(b)) (see para. 42)

2. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Single plea based on a misinterpretation of a provision — Action manifestly devoid of legal foundation (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1); Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 94(b)) (see paras 43-45)

3. EU public contracts — Procedure for award of public contracts — Discovery of significant errors, irregularities or fraud vitiating the procedure after the award of the contract — Institution’s margin of discretion (Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 103, second para.) (see paras 46-50)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 to award lot No 1 in the call for tenders EP/DGCOMM/AV/11/11 relating to the provision of audiovisual services within the Parliament in Brussels (Belgium) to watch tv and of the Parliament’s decision of 18 November 2011 rejecting Eubropa’s bid for that lot.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 7)

2. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 8)

3. Applications for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(3)) (see paras 9, 10)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Scope of the burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 12-17)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s measure, notified by letter of 13 January 2012, revoking several subsidies granted to 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 24 October 2013 —

Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)

(Case T-451/12)

‛Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Earlier Community word mark STORMBERG — Surrender of the disputed mark by the proprietor — Decision to close the revocation proceedings — Request for restitutio in integrum — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 58(1), 76(1) and 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions — Due care required by the circumstances — Exceptional events, which cannot therefore be predicted (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see paras 36, 37)

3. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Restitutio in integrum — Conditions under which applicable — Restrictive interpretation (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 81(1)) (see para. 38)

4. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Similar requirements for claims invoked in support of a plea (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see para. 66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 389/2012-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Stromberg Menswear Ltd and Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 – Ternavsky v Council

(Case T-163/12 R)

Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility

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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 8)

2. 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 — Financial loss arising from a measure freezing funds — Mere affirmation that serious and irreparable damage imminent — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 9-10, 13-15, 19-20)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the application of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95) and of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

14 November 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 in Case F‑113/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1) and (6))

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant appearing at the bottom of the application lodged by fax is not identical to that appearing on the original of the application lodged subsequently, the application sent by fax cannot be taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings.

In European Union civil service disputes, Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Tribunal is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days after the copy of the original was received. Consequently, where it appears that the original of the pleading which is lodged in hard copy at the Registry within ten days of a copy being faxed to the Civil Service Tribunal does not bear the same signature as that appearing on the faxed document, it must be held that what has been received by the Registry of the Tribunal are two separate pleadings, each bearing a signature of its own, even where each of those signatures has been appended by the same person. The strict application of Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 14, 19)

See:

C-426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I-8849, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑438/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 May 2013 in Case F‑141/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15