ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
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 – 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 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage capable of arising at any moment – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation capable of seriously compromising the carrying out by a public educational establishment of its public service functions (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21, 25-33)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decisions contained, respectively, in Commission letter D (2009) 224268 of 9 September 2009, concerning a recovery order, and Commission debit note No 3230909105 of 11 September 2009 for an amount of EUR 327 500.35.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion – Procedural position of plaintiffs different from that in a competition matter (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 27)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Examination of the legality of a measure adopted by a national authority – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 28)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Pleas seeking a direction that a complaint be reexamined – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 29)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission letter of 7 August 2009 informing the applicant that the facts on which it lodged the complaint did not permit the conclusion that there was an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken regarding its complaint.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL, is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6 to 8; Council Decision 2006/683, Annex II) (see paras 26-31)

2. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an alleged implied rejection decision by the Council concerning an application for access to documents – Express decision taken during the proceedings – No further interest in bringing an action (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6 to 8; Council Decision 2006/683, Annex II) (see paras 34-39)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Unlimited jurisdiction – Directions issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 42-44)

Subject of the case

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 17 June 2009 refusing the applicant access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’, and for annulment of the implied refusal decision adopted on confirmatory application and, second, application seeking a declaration that the Council be ordered to authorise access, in electronic form, to the documents requested.

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Ivan Jurašinović for annulment of the implied decision of the Council of the European Union rejecting his confirmatory application for access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’.

2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible.

3. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – 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 – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35-36, 45)

2. European Union Law – Principles – Principle of prohibition of unjust enrichment of the Union – Remedy – Actions for damages – Condition – Enrichment of the Union without legal basis and corresponding impoverishment of the applicant (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the delegations of the European Union to Morocco and Nigeria have been unjustly enriched and, second, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 114 069.94 and the interest due on that sum.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Tecnoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages

–

Limitation period

–

Point from which time starts to run

–

Damage of a continuing nature

–

Date to be taken into consideration (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 47-48, 50, 61-62

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to take measures preventing the Turkish authorities from infringing the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey when determining the origin of colour televisions imported into the Community from Turkey.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Formenti Seleco SpA is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Exercise of contractual rights by an institution in the name of and on behalf of one of the contractual parties – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility

(Arts 230 EC and 249 EC)

Summary

Under Article 230 EC, the Community Courts review the legality of acts of the institutions intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position. That jurisdiction concerns only the acts referred to by Article 249 EC, which the institutions must adopt under the conditions laid down by the Treaty.

By contrast, measures adopted by the institutions in a purely contractual context from which they are inseparable are, by their very nature, not among the measures covered by Article 249 EC, annulment of which may be sought before the Community judicature pursuant to Article 230 EC.

However, the measure adopted by an institution in a contractual context must be considered as being severable from the latter where, first, the measure was adopted by that institution in the exercise of its own powers, and, second, it produces, by itself, obligatory legal effects capable of affecting the interests of its recipient against which, therefore, an action for annulment may be brought. Accordingly, an action for annulment brought by the addressee of the measure must be considered to be admissible. In that context, the ‘own powers of an institution’ must be understood as those deriving from the Treaties or secondary law which are part of its public power prerogatives and accordingly allow it to create or amend, unilaterally, rights and obligations for a third party. On the other hand, the exercise of contractual rights by an institution, if the Union has received authority to act in the name of and on behalf of one of the contractual parties, does not constitute exercise of its own powers.

(see paras 24-26, 32-33)
Case T‑450/09 DEP

Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

(EU trade mark — Procedure — Taxation of costs — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Referral of the action to the Court of Justice)

Summary — Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 8 February 2018

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Taxation — Court having jurisdiction in the event of an appeal

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 137 and 184(1) and (2); Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 133)

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 20-22)
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 March 2010 – GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF

(Case T-435/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Community programmes for research and technological development – Arbitration clause – Order for recovery – Debit note – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Financial loss – No exceptional circumstances – No urgency

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Application for interim measures – Identification of the defendant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 16-17)

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 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 27-29)

3. Application 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 – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33)

4. Application 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 – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the company belongs – Application to a natural person exercising control over that company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 10 July 2009 terminating the applicant’s participation in two Community projects and the debit notes issued on 7 August 2009 by which the Commission claimed repayment of sums paid pursuant to Community projects in which the applicant participated.

Operative part

1. The European Commission shall be regarded as the sole defendant.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 October 2009 – Novácke chemické závody v Commission

(Case T-352/09 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of enforcement of a measure – Lack of urgency

1. Application 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 court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Damage having already arisen at the time of the adoption of the decision by the court hearing the application for interim measures – Lack of urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-44)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Applicant company losing an opportunity for redress – Purely hypothetical damage depending on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-51)

4. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Exemption from the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for fine not being recovered immediately – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Burden of proof (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-59)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of enforcement of the Commission decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 – Calcium carbide and magnesium-based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sencond Chamber) of 24 August 2010 – Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission

(Case T-386/09)

Action for annulment – Competition – Rejection of complaint – Measure against which actions may not be brought by individuals – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Right of the Commission to bring judicial proceedings – To be exercised at its discretion – Procedural position of plaintiffs different from that in a competition matter (Art. 226 EC) (see paras 26-27)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 27)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Examination of the legality of a measure adopted by a national authority – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 28)

4. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Pleas seeking a direction that a complaint be reexamined – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission letter of 7 August 2009 informing the applicant that the facts on which it lodged the complaint did not permit the conclusion that there was an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken regarding its complaint.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Tecnoprocess v Commission

(Case T-403/09)

Action for damages – Unjust enrichment – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – 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 – General reference to documents annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 35-36, 45)

2. European Union Law – Principles – Principle of prohibition of unjust enrichment of the Union – Remedy – Actions for damages – Condition – Enrichment of the Union without legal basis and corresponding impoverishment of the applicant (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 43)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for a declaration that the European Commission and the delegations of the European Union to Morocco and Nigeria have been unjustly enriched and, second, for an order that the Commission pay the sum of EUR 114 069.94 and the interest due on that sum.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – Government of Gibraltar v Commission

(Case T-176/09)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2009/95/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Inclusion in the site of Community importance called ‘Estrecho oriental’ of an area of the territorial waters of Gibraltar and of an area of the high seas – Partial annulment – Non-severability – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Subject-matter – Partial annulment – Condition – Severability of the contested provisions – Provisions of a Commission decision enlarging the area of a site of Community importance – Annulment entailing a modification of the substance of the decision – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC; Council Directive 92/43; Commission Decision 2009/95) (see paras 34, 37-42)

2. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Action inadmissible – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – No impact on the assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 47-49)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2009/95/EC of 12 December 2008 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a second updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2009 L 43, p. 393) to the extent that it extends the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (ES6120032) to the territorial waters of Gibraltar (both within and outside Site UKGIB0002) and to an area of the high seas.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Government of Gibraltar is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2012 – Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission

(Case T-407/09)

Action for annulment – State aid – Contracts for the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg – Complaint – Act not subject to review – Inadmissibility – Action for failure to act

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25-27, 29-30)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Definition of position within the meaning of Article 232, second para., EC – Concept – Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure – Included – Inadmissibility (Arts 88(2) EC and 232 EC) (see paras 37-39, 41)

Re:

ACTION, first, for annulment of the Commission decision claimed to be contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that some contracts concluded by the applicant regarding the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg did not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, second, for a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act, under Article 232 EC, since the Commission did not define its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC] (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Conditions for admissibility

–

Connection of the measure sought with the pleas in the main proceedings

–

Provisional character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 8-10

)
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 – 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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Irreparable alteration in market share – Included – Conditions – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39, 41-48)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Decision not to include a substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414 – Risk normally having to be borne by an undertaking operating in the phytopharmaceuticals market – Damage not serious in nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 55-59)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.