ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2017 — Germany v Commission

(Case T‑21/10)

Action for annulment — ERDF — 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 65, 66)

2. Acts of the institutions—Temporal application—Procedural rules—Immediate entry into force (Council Regulation No 1083/2006, Art. 100(5)) (see paras 73, 76)

Re:

ACTION on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9049 of 13 November 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Single Programming Document Objective 2 Saarland (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1123 of 7 May 1997.

Operative part

1. Commission Decision C(2009) 9049 of 13 November 2009 reducing the assistance granted to the Single Programming Document Objective 2 Saarland (1997-1999) in the Federal Republic of Germany from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Commission Decision C(97)1123 of 7 May 1997 is annulled.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — H v Council and Others

(Case T‑271/10)

‛Application for annulment — Application for damages — Common foreign and security policy — National expert seconded to the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Decision to redeploy — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114) (see paras 25, 28)

2. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action against measures adopted by the head of the European Union Police Mission in the context of the secondment of a national expert to that mission — Measures falling within the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy — Not included (Arts 24(1), second para., TEU and 40 TEU; Art. 275, second para., TFEU; Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP) (see paras 34, 35)

3. Actions for annulment — Capacity to be a defendant — European Union Police Mission — Measures adopted by the head of such a mission in the context of the secondment of a national expert — Imputability to the national authorities — Application inadmissible — Jurisdiction of the national courts (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP, Arts 5(4), 6(2) and (5), and 8(2)) (see paras 44-52)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the decision of 7 April 2010, signed by the Chief of Personnel of the EUPM, by which the applicant was redeployed to the post of ‘Criminal Justice Adviser — Prosecutor’ in the regional office of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and, if needed, of the decision of 30 April 2010, signed by the Head of Mission referred to in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/906/CFSP of 8 December 2009 on the EUPM in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (OJ 2009 L 322, p. 22), confirming the decision of 7 April 2010, and second, for damages.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 – Fondation IDIAP v Commission

(Case T-286/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration actions – Letter confirming the findings of a financial audit – Application for suspension of operation and for interim measures – 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 – 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 9-11)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-26)

3. Application 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 27-28)

Re:

Essentially, application for suspension of operation of the Commission’s letter of 11 May 2010 confirming the findings of the audit concerning the breakdowns of costs submitted by the applicant, in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 as regards the Amida project and in respect of the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2007 as regards the Bacs and Dirac projects.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 16 February 2011 – Nencini v Parliament

(Case T-560/10 R)

Interim measures – Member of the European Parliament – Recovery of allowances for parliamentary assistance and travel – Application for suspension of operation – No urgency

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 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 10)

2. Applications 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 para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of various decisions of the European Parliament ordering the recovery of parliamentary allowances allegedly unduly paid.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 October 2010 – Nexans France v Entreprise commune Fusion for Energy

(Case T-415/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Tendering procedure – Rejection of a tender – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

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 – 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 18-21)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of an opportunity to be awarded and to perform the contract in the tendering procedure – Damage capable of full remedy in the action in the main proceedings or in an action for compensation – Not irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33, 36)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of an opportunity to be awarded and to perform the contract in the tendering procedure – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs – Jurisdiction 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 37-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of decisions taken by the defendant, in a tendering procedure, to reject the applicant’s bid and to award the contract for supply of TF and PF conductors to another tenderer.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2011 – Ax v Council

(Case T-259/10)

Action for annulment – European Union financial assistance to a Member State experiencing serious economic or financial disruption – Regulation establishing the conditions and procedures under which European Union financial assistance may be granted – Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU – No direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Regulation establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism – Regulation limited to establishing the conditions and procedure for granting financial assistance to a Member State – Wide discretion of the Council as to the conditions to be fulfilled by the Member State in order to receive assistance – Loss of value of the applicant’s pension rights depending on various other factors – Applicant not directly affected (Art. 263, para. 4, TFEU; Council Regulation No 407/2010) (see paras 20-25)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ 2010 L 118, p. 1).

Operative part

1.The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Thomas Ax is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-480/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern –Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 37-38, 44)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 40-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/426/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11xGA21 (SYN-BTØ11-1xMON‑ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 36).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2011 – DBV v Commission

(Case T-297/10)

Action for annulment – Dumping – Imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China – Rights of defence – Calculation of normal value – Proportionality – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Opening of the investigation – Duty of the institutions to keep the undertakings concerned informed – Scope – Capacity of undertaking concerned – Burden of proof (Council Regulation No1225/2009, Art. 5(10) and (11)) (see paras 20-22)

2. European Union law – Principles – Proportionality – Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties – Proportionate nature – Criteria for assessment – Discretion of the EU legislature in the matter of common commercial policy – Judicial review – Limits (Art. 5, fourth para., EU; Council Regulation No 1225/2009) (see paras 36-38)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Condition – Action capable of conferring a benefit on the party who brought it – Scope (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 404/2010 of 10 May 2010 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 64).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 31 August 2011 – IEM v Commission

(Case T-435/10)

Action for annulment – Fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration – Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract – Arbitration clause – Letter notifying the issuing of a debit note – Reminder letter – Acts inseparable from the contract – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – No jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 272 TFEU and 274 TFEU) (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Excluded (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see para. 29)

Re:

ACTION, first, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the issuing of a debit note for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 105 416.47, corresponding to the sums paid in advance to the applicant by Parthénon AE Oikodomikon – Technikon – Touristikon – Viomichanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion pursuant to Contract FAIR-CT98-9544 concluded in the context of the fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration and, second, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 14 July 2010 reminding the applicant of the principal outstanding sum, claimed in debit note No 3241004968.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2012 — Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK)

(Case T-360/10)

Community trade mark — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances — No force majeure — Right of access to a court — Manifest inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 11, 12)

2. Proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 22)

3. European Union law — Direct effect — National procedural rules — Conditions under which applicable — Compliance with principles of equivalence and effectiveness (see paras 29, 33-35)

4. Proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Action introduced by fax — Requirement that fax be identical with the original of the application — Aim — Proportionality (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6)) (see paras 37-40, 42-47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2010 (Case R 1795/2008-4), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tecnimed Srl and Ecobrands Ltd.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
54

Contrary to the applicant’s view, the relevant passage of the contested decision does not call the applicant’s reputation into question. In particular, contrary to the applicant’s claims, the Commission did not call into question the applicant’s good faith, but merely considered that, in the light of the complexity of the applicable customs legislation, a diligent operator with the applicant’s level of experience should have been able to avoid the customs declaration error committed by the applicant. Thus, in the contested decision, the Commission has not made a value judgment about the applicant or its conduct but, rather, has focused on whether the applicant could benefit from the application of the exonerating circumstances provided for in Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, as the customs declaration errors made by the applicant could not have reasonably been avoided, or whether those errors should, on the contrary, be attributed to the applicant.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Affi Pascal N’Guessan is ordered to bear his own costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Community law

–

Prima facie admissibility of the main action

–

Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures

–

No interest in bringing an action in the main proceedings

–

Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 10, 12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 concerning State aid No MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows therefrom that there must be no new transactions involving Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG after 15 February 2011.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 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 6-8)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – 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 – Application to relations between a non-profit-making association and its members – Lawfulness – Conditions (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 11-20)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission decision of 5 November 2010 terminating the contracts concluded for two research projects and the debit note of 13 December 2010 informing the applicant of the establishment of debts in the execution of those contracts.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
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 – 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 14-15)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – 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 (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-22, 28-31, 33)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision to exclude a tenderer from a tender procedure – Damage to its reputation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 38)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 which, first, rejects the tenders submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure AO 10340 concerning the supply of computing services for software development, maintenance, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications (OJ 2011/S 66-106099) and, second, informs the applicant that the relevant framework contract has been awarded to other tenderers.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.