ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision

–

Conditions

–

Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy

–

Action brought by the Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France

–

Not of individual concern

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 73/2009) (see paras 29-33, 36, 40-43, 45

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Union des coopératives agricoles des producteurs de tabac de France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including the costs of the proceedings for interim measures.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑97/09)

(Actions for annulment — FEDER — Reduction in financial aid — Failure to comply with the time limit for adoption of a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Action manifestly well founded)

1. Actions for annulment—Pleas in law—Infringement of essential procedural requirements—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Condition—Compliance with the principle that the parties should be heard (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 71, 72)

2. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 79, 87)

Application for

ACTION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region of the Land of Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/4 of 5 August 1994, Commission Decision C(94) 2273/4 of 22 August 1994 and Commission Decision C(94) 1425 of 6 September 1994.

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2008) 8465 final of 19 December 2008 on the reduction of the assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for an operational programme in the Objective 1 region of the Land of Saxony in the Federal Republic of Germany (1994-1999) in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/4 of 5 August 1994, Commission Decision C(94) 2273/4 of 22 August 1994 and Commission Decision C(94) 1425 of 6 September 1994 is annulled.

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2009 – Noko Ngele v Commission

(Case T-390/09 R)

Application for interim measures – No need to adjudicate

Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Main action dismissed in the meantime – Request which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate (Art. 279 TFEU) (see paras 3-4)

Re:

Application for interim measures to ensure compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following allegedly unlawful conduct by a Member of the Commission and certain agents of that institution.

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 October 2009

Case T-283/09 P

Laleh Aayhan and Others

v

European Parliament

(Appeals – Civil service – Auxiliary staff – Time-limit for appeal – Lateness – Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 in Case F-65/07 Aayhan and Others v Parliament [2009] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Ms Laleh Aayhan and the 78 other former members of the European Parliament’s auxiliary staff whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment are to bear their own costs.

Summary

Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Proceedings time-barred – Force majeure – Concept

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45)

The concepts of ‘unforeseeable circumstances’ or ‘force majeure’ within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice require there to be abnormal difficulties, independent of the will of the person concerned and apparently inevitable, even if all due care is taken. Those concepts both contain an objective element relating to abnormal circumstances unconnected with the person in question and a subjective element involving the obligation, on his part, to guard against the consequences of the abnormal event by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices. In particular, the person must pay close attention to the course of the procedure set in motion and, in particular, demonstrate diligence in order to comply with the prescribed time-limits. Thus, the concept of force majeure does not apply to a situation in which, objectively, a diligent and prudent person would have been able to take the necessary steps before the expiry of the period prescribed for instituting proceedings. That applies where the main reason for the lateness of an appeal may lie in the fact that the appellant’s counsel used a ‘registered bundle not suitable for international mail’ and that he therefore did not comply with some of the criteria enabling the postal service operator to guarantee the correct delivery of the item.

(see paras 19-20)

See: 209/83 Ferriera Valsabbia v Commission [1984] ECR 3089, para. 22; C‑195/91 P Bayer v Commission [1994] ECR I‑5619, paras 31 and 32; C‑325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM [2005] ECR I‑403, para. 25; C‑242/07 P Belgium v Commission [2007] ECR I‑9757, para. 17
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 November 2010 – United Phosporus v Commission

(Case T-95/09 R III)

Application for interim relief – Directive 91/414/EEC – Decision concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Extension of a suspension measure

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Application for further extension of a measure suspending operation of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414 – Continuance of the circumstances which justified the granting of the measure – Duration of the extension – Limits (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 15-20)

Re:

APPLICATION for the extension of the suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35).

Operative part

1. The suspension of operation granted in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T‑95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 31 December 2011 or until the date of adoption of the decision in the main proceedings at the latest, if that decision is adopted earlier.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 June 2010 – Biocaps v Commission

(Case T-24/09)

Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an inspection – Article 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Existence of the addressee of the decision – Action manifestly unfounded in law

1. Competition – Administrative procedure – Decision ordering an inspection – Addressee (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) (see paras 25-26)

2. Competition – Administrative procedure – Commission’s power of inspection – Decision ordering a legal person and the entities controlled by it to submit to an inspection – Scope (Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 20(4)) (see para. 32)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6524 of 29 October 2008, in Case COMP/39510, ordering Laboratoire Champagnat Desmoulins Philippakis, and all of the entities controlled directly or indirectly by it, to submit to an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2002 L 1, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 7 July 2011 – Acetificio Marcello de Nigris v Commission

(Case T-351/09)

Action for annulment – Registration of a protected geographical indication – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of basing an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU – None (Art. 230, fourth and fifth paras, EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 57)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation concerning the entry of certain designations in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ – Protection of the geographical indication ‘Aceto balsamico di Modena’ – Action by a producer established outside the provinces in respect of which the entry made – No acquired rights specific to that producer – Inadmissibility (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 13(1)) (see paras 59-70)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Protection assured by the national courts where the EU judicature without jurisdiction – Regulation No 2081/92 – No opposition procedure initiated against an application for registration of a geographical indication, provided for by the regulation, and subsequent introduction of an action before the national courts – Infringement of the right to effective legal protection – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 5(5) and (7)) (see paras 73, 75-79)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)) (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena.

3. Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 – 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 13-15)

2. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Application for interim measures – Identification of the defendant – Action against the Council, the Commission and the EU Police Mission without legal personality – Possibility of clarification by the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Art. 263, first and fourth paras, TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1); Council Decision 2009/906) (see paras 18-21)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Detailed statement of the subject-matter (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 104)(3)) (see para. 22)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings – None (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of 7 April 2010 of the Head of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina having the effect of downgrading and redeploying the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The Council of the European Union and the European Commission are considered to be the only defendants.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

3. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 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 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss –Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 31-33, 45-47)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 42-44, 55-59)

Subject of the case

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/38.589 – heat stabilisers).

Operative part

Re:

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 – 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 10-11)

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 – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16, 18)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 21-22, 25-27, 29)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Serious and irreparable damage – Taking into consideration the financial situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 36-37)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Risk of jeopardising the existence of the applicant company – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 44-46)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 53)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Prestressed steel) and for waiver of the obligation to establish a bank guarantee in order to prevent the immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application – Possibility of bringing a new application – Condition – New facts – Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 12-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – New application for suspension of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I of Directive 91/414 – Obligation to withdraw authorisations for products containing that substance already carried out by the Member States – Legal impossibility of extending the period of grace allowed for the disposal of those products – Financial loss below the seriousness threshold of 10% – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 20-28)

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).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying borates as substances of very high concern

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1907/2006, Arts 7(2) and (3), 31(9)(a), 33, 34(a), 59 and Annex XIV)

Summary

Direct concern to the applicant, as a condition for the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person against a decision that is not addressed to him, requires that the measure complained of directly affect the legal situation of the individual, and that it leave no discretion to the addressees of that measure, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic and resulting from European Union rules without the application of other intermediate rules.

In that regard, it must be concluded that the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) identifying borates as substances of very high concern for eventual inclusion in the list in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and establishing a European Chemicals Agency, as amended, does not directly affect the legal situation of an applicant who is an importer of borates in the light of the obligations laid down by that regulation, in so far as it is established, first, that the identification of borates as substances of very high concern as a result of the procedure referred to in Article 59 of Regulation No 1907/2006 does not amount to new information capable of affecting the risk management measures, or new information on hazards within the meaning of Article 31(9)(a) of Regulation No 1907/2006, and therefore the applicant is not obliged to update the safety data sheet; and, secondly, that the information obligations under Article 7(2) and Articles 33 and 34(a) of that regulation are not of concern to the applicant.

Moreover, the mere fact that a measure may exercise an influence on an applicant’s material situation cannot suffice to allow him to be regarded as directly concerned. Only the existence of specific circumstances may enable a person subject to European Union law and claiming that the measure affects his position on the market to bring proceedings under the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. An applicant who has merely claimed that his customers will be reluctant to continue to buy products which are on the candidate list has failed to prove the existence of those specific circumstances.

(see paras 22, 38, 44-46)