ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2008 – VDH Projektentwicklung and Edeka Rhein-Ruhr v Commission

(Case T-185/08)

Actions for failure to act – Commission not implementing the corrective mechanism under Article 3(2) of Directive 89/665/EEC – Natural and legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Manifest inadmissibility

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Directive 89/665 (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 232, third para., EC; Council Directive 89/665, Art. 3) (see paras 9-17)

Re:

ACTION for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to act in that it failed, in relation to the conclusion of a public works contract between the town of Stolberg and Kaufland Stiftung & Co., and in relation to the award of a general commercial contract by Kaufland Stiftung & Co., to implement without delay the corrective mechanism provided for under Article 3 of Directive 89/665/EEC and to send the Federal Republic of Germany a notification under Article 3(2) of that directive.

Operative part.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 July 2009 – Thoss v Court of Auditors

(Case T-545/08)

Action for annulment – Time-limit for bringing an action – Lateness – Absence of excusable error – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Division of jurisdiction between the various Community courts – Action for annulment brought by a Member of the Court of Auditors against a decision of that institution – Lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal (Art. 230 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 8(2)) (see paras 26-27)

2. Procedure – Time-limits for instituting proceedings – Mandatory (see paras 35-36, 40)

3. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Notification (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 41-42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 20 March 2006 refusing to allocate to the applicant, the widow of a former Member of the Court of Auditors, a survivor’s pension on the ground that the condition that the couple had to have been married for five years at the time of death has not been satisfied (case registered as F-46/08 and referred by the Civil Service Tribunal).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. Mrs Thérèse Nicole Thoss is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2009 – Alves dos Santos v Commission

(Case T-184/08)

European Social Fund – Training programmes – Reduction in the financial assistance initially granted – Application – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – General reference to other documents not annexed to the application – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 18-27)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 March 2004, notified to Mr Rui Manuel Alves dos Santos on 3 March 2008, reducing the amount of financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) in respect of a vocational training programme submitted by the Portuguese authorities in file No 89 0488 P1.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 September 2009 – Ivanov v Commission

(Case T-166/08)

Non-contractual liability – Local administrative and technical staff – Rejection of application – Jurisdiction of the Court – Annulment action time-barred – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals – Act of the European Ombudsman – Action partially inadmissible and partially manifestly devoid of any legal basis

1. Actions for damages – Subject-matter – Claim for compensation in respect of damage for which the Community liable – Exclusive jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 41)

2. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment – Action seeking the withdrawal of an individual decision which has become definitive – Inadmissibility (Art. 235 EC) (see paras 51-52)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 70-72)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the Commission’s decision refusing to recruit him as a local administrative and technical assistant at the Commission delegation in Sofia (Bulgaria).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Dover v Parliament

(Case T-149/09 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Inadmissibility — No 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 judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12, 13)

2. 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 — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43, 44 and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 14, 18, 19, 21)

3. 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 (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-29)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision of the European Parliament to recover allowances unduly paid to one of its Members — Need for the Parliament to bring proceedings before a national court having jurisdiction where voluntary payment refused — Possibility of the national court suspending operation of the said decision until resolution of the matter on the substance before the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance — No urgency (Arts 230 EC, 234 EC and 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Non-material damage not capable of being better compensated for in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 37)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Decision D(2009) 4639 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of allowances unduly paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of his parliamentary assistance expenses, of the debit note based on that decision and of any decision taken with a view to offsetting the amount claimed against payment of other parliamentary allowances due to the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
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) (see paras 50-55)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision to open a formal investigation procedure classifying a transport service as a public service – Legal effects independent of the final decision – None (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(4) and 6(1)) (see paras 56-61)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4776 final of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid C 41/2008 (ex NN 35/2008), implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark in favour of Danske Statsbaner.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Jørgen Andersen is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

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

)
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Jurisdiction of the Community judicature

–

Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 29-32

)
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 – 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 29-31)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 44-46)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 48)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Concept (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 69)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Article 2(1), read in conjunction with points 5.4, 5.7 and 6.7 in the Annex to Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009, in Case C 43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) concerning restructuring aid that the German authorities intend to implement for WestLB AG, reading that decision in conjunction with Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 in State aid Cases MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB, to the extent that it follows therefrom that new operations by the Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG must be terminated after 15 February 2011.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 31 January 2011 in Case T‑457/09 R Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission is rescinded.

3. The applications to intervene made by Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG, Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landschaftsverband Rheinland, WestLB, the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen and Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband have become devoid of purpose.

4. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for an individual measure – Date on which the injurious effects of the measure are produced – Refusal of the Commission to intervene in a dispute concerning the payment of a debt by a non-member State to a Community national under the Cotonou Agreement – Time running from the point at which the damage realised, concretising at the point of that refusal – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the reality of the damage – Not permissible – Inadmissibility on account of prescription (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see paras 41-42, 52, 62, 67)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions – Lodging of an application before the Community judicature or submission of a prior request to the competent institution – Concept of application for that purpose – Application for annulment – Not included (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 43, 63, 65, 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages to compensate for the harm allegedly suffered following the Commission’s refusal to intervene in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Massimo Campailla is ordered to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

–

Commission decision closing an aid proceeding

–

Competitor of the aid recipient

–

Right to bring an action

–

Conditions (Arts 88(2) EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 30-34

)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Regulation imposing restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban – Regulation continuing to produce effects until its repeal – No effect (Art. 263, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1); Commission Regulation No 1330/2008) (see paras 20-21, 37)

2. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Mandatory (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 101(1)(a) and (b)) (see paras 29, 38, 41)

3. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Concept – Error by the applicant’s lawyer in calculating time-limits – Not included (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 101(1)) (see paras 31-32)

4. Procedure – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Claim barred by lapse of time – Previous order allowing the applicant legal aid – No effect (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 96(4)) (see paras 35-36)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Abdelrazag Elosta is ordered to bear his own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.

3. The Council of the European Union is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2009 – TerreStar Europe v Commission

(Case T-196/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Decision on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services – Application for suspension of operation of the measure and interim relief – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see. paras 24-26)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 53-54)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-75, 80-83)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 85)

Re:

In essence, APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/449/EC of 13 May 2009 on the selection of operators of pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2009 L 149, p. 65).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 7 May 2010 – Almamet v Commission

(Case T-410/09 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Financial loss – No exceptional circumstances – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30-32)

2. 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 (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 34-36)

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 – Serious and irreparable damage – Situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs to be taken into account (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 47-48)

4. 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 – Lodging of an additional pleading to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the procedure for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 55)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation 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/F-1/39.396 – Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 18 March 2011 – Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

(Case T-457/09 R)

Interim procedure – Authorisation of State aid for the restructuring of a bank – Abandonment of a branch as a compensatory indemnity – Urgency – Weighing up of interests

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – 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 29-31)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 44-46)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 48)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Concept (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 69)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Article 2(1), read in conjunction with points 5.4, 5.7 and 6.7 in the Annex to Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final corr. of 12 May 2009, in Case C 43/2008 (ex N 390/2008) concerning restructuring aid that the German authorities intend to implement for WestLB AG, reading that decision in conjunction with Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 in State aid Cases MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 – Germany – WestLB, to the extent that it follows therefrom that new operations by the Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG must be terminated after 15 February 2011.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 31 January 2011 in Case T‑457/09 R Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission is rescinded.

3. The applications to intervene made by Westdeutsche Immobilien Bank AG, Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe, Landschaftsverband Rheinland, WestLB, the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen and Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband have become devoid of purpose.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 14 March 2011 – Campailla v Commission

(Case T-429/09)

Action for damages – Limitation period – Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability for an individual measure – Date on which the injurious effects of the measure are produced – Refusal of the Commission to intervene in a dispute concerning the payment of a debt by a non-member State to a Community national under the Cotonou Agreement – Time running from the point at which the damage realised, concretising at the point of that refusal – Account taken of a subjective assessment of the reality of the damage – Not permissible – Inadmissibility on account of prescription (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see paras 41-42, 52, 62, 67)

2. Actions for damages – Limitation period – Interruption – Conditions – Lodging of an application before the Community judicature or submission of a prior request to the competent institution – Concept of application for that purpose – Application for annulment – Not included (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 46) (see paras 43, 63, 65, 67)

Re:

ACTION for damages to compensate for the harm allegedly suffered following the Commission’s refusal to intervene in a dispute between the applicant and the Cameroonian State.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.