ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 2015 —

Frank Bold v Commission

(Case T‑19/13)

‛Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Decision granting the Czech Republic an option for transitional free allocation of quotas for the modernisation of electricity generation — Request for internal review of that decision — No measure of individual scope — Commission decision declaring the request for a review inadmissible — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)’

1. Acts of the institutions — Decision of the Commission fronting a Member State an option for transitional free allocation of quotas for the modernisation of electricity generation — Measure of general scope — No administrative act which can form the subject-matter of a request for an internal review under Regulation No 1367/2006 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Arts 2(1)(g), and 10(1); European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9 and 10c) (see paras 33-45)

2. International agreements — European Union Agreements — Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) — Effects — Primacy over secondary legislation of the European Union — Examination of the legality of an act of secondary EU law having regard to the provisions of that convention — Conditions — Provisions not unconditional and sufficiently precise — Not included (Art. 216(2) TFEU; Aarhus Convention, Art. 9(3); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006, Art. 10(1)) (see paras 52-54)

3. Environment — Atmospheric pollution — Directive 2003/87 — National allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances (NAP) — Discretion of the Commission — Adoption of guidelines for implementation of the directive — Scope — Self-limitation of the Commission’s power — Right of addressee Member States to cite the said guidelines against the Commission (European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87) (see paras 62, 63)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of (i) Commission Decision C(2012) 8382 final of 12 November 2012 rejecting as inadmissible the request for internal review of Commission decision C(2012) 4576 final of 6 July 2012 granting the Czech Republic an option for transitional free allocation of quotas for the modernisation of electricity generation, and (ii) the latter decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Frank Bold Society is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.
In an action brought by natural or legal persons under the second and third situations referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in order to satisfy the requirement of direct concern, two cumulative criteria must be met, namely, first, that the act the annulment of which the applicants seek must directly affect their legal situation and, second, that that act must 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 EU rules without the application of other intermediate rules. Those conditions cannot be called into question by the right of individuals to effective judicial protection.

A Commission decision, adopted pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, accepting an undertaking offered by an exporter of products subject to anti-dumping duties by virtue of Commission and Council regulations establishing provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties respectively, does not produce legal effects of such a kind as directly to affect the legal situation of EU producers. It follows from the system established under Regulation No 1225/2009 that it is not because of the decision accepting undertakings that the imports covered by those undertakings are exempt from anti-dumping duties. The exemption stems from the provisions adopted, either by the Commission in the amended provisional anti-dumping Regulation, or by the Council in the definitive anti-dumping Regulation, in order to implement the undertakings in question.

Whilst it is true that, in its second sentence, Article 8(1) of the Regulation No 1225/2009 provides that, where the Commission accepts such an offer, and as long as the undertakings in question are in force, the provisional or definitive duties imposed are not to apply to imports of the product concerned manufactured by the companies referred to in the Commission decision accepting the undertakings, the said provision nevertheless requires, for the period during which an undertaking is in force, the exemption from anti-dumping duties which stems from the provisions which are adopted, either by the Commission in the amended provisional anti-dumping Regulation, or by the Council in the definitive anti-dumping Regulation.

(see paras 40, 48, 51, 52, 54)
8

The procedure for granting stability support to an ESM Member is described in Article 13 the ESM Treaty as follows: ‘1. An ESM Member may address a request for stability support to the Chairperson of the Board of Governors. Such a request shall indicate the financial assistance instrument(s) to be considered. On receipt of such a request, the Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission, in liaison with the [European Central Bank], with the following tasks: (a) to assess the existence of a risk to the financial stability of the euro area as a whole or of its Member States, unless the [European Central Bank] has already submitted an analysis under Article 18(2); (b) to assess whether public debt is sustainable. Wherever appropriate and possible, such an assessment is expected to be conducted together with the [International Monetary Fund]; (c) to assess the actual or potential financing needs of the ESM Member concerned. 2. On the basis of the request of the ESM Member and the assessment referred to in paragraph 1, the Board of Governors may decide to grant, in principle, stability support to the ESM Member concerned in the form of a financial assistance facility. 3. If a decision pursuant to paragraph 2 is adopted, the Board of Governors shall entrust the European Commission — in liaison with the [European Central Bank] and, wherever possible, together with the [International Monetary Fund] — with the task of negotiating, with the ESM Member concerned, a memorandum of understanding (an “MoU”) detailing the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility. The content of the MoU shall reflect the severity of the weaknesses to be addressed and the financial assistance instrument chosen. In parallel, the Managing Director of the ESM shall prepare a proposal for a financial assistance facility agreement, including the financial terms and conditions and the choice of instruments, to be adopted by the Board of Governors. The MoU shall be fully consistent with the measures of economic policy coordination provided for in the [FEU Treaty], in particular with any act of EU law, including any opinion, warning, recommendation or decision addressed to the ESM Member concerned. 4. The European Commission shall sign the MoU on behalf of the ESM, subject to prior compliance with the conditions set out in paragraph 3 and approval by the Board of Governors. 5. The Board of Directors shall approve the financial assistance facility agreement detailing the financial aspects of the stability support to be granted and, where applicable, the disbursement of the first tranche of the assistance. … 7. The European Commission — in liaison with the [European Central Bank] and, wherever possible, together with the [International Monetary Fund] — shall be entrusted with monitoring compliance with the conditionality attached to the financial assistance facility.’
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of the operation of a decision ordering the recovery of State aid — Review of the validity of national measures implementing that decision — Jurisdiction of the national courts — Rejection (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see para. 8)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of the operation of a decision ordering the recovery of State aid — Community law — Application — Formal requirements — Sufficiently precise statement of the factors enabling examination of the condition concerning urgency — No concrete and precise indications showing the financial position of the party seeking the interim measures — No information as to the irreparable nature of the financial damage alleged — No factors establishing the non-existence of remedies against the national implementing measures before the national courts — Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) TFEU, 256(1) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 11-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of, inter alia, Commission Decision C(2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on State aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006) — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Autoneum Germany v Commission

(Case T‑295/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Autoneum Germany v Commission

(Case T‑295/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.

Judicial proceedings — Division of jurisdiction between the various courts of the European Union — Claim for compensation for excessive duration of the court proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court allegedly in default to rule in a different judgment formation — Representation of the Union, the defendant, by the Court of Justice — Irrelevant (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340 TFEU) (see paras 45-48, 51-53)
Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2014 — August Wolff and Remedia v Commission

(Case T‑672/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use — Application for suspension of operation 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 — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Weighing-up of the interests — 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. 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 or irremediably alter its position in the market — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs — Obligation to provide concrete and specific information on the economic and financial situation of the group (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 29, 30, 32, 33)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36, 37)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Implementing decision of the Commission amending the marketing authorisation of a medicinal product for human use — Damage to the applicant’s reputation — Assessment — Non-material damage not capable of better remedy in interim proceedings then in the main proceedings — No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-41)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42, 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 6030 final of 19 August 2014 concerning marketing authorisations for topical medicinal products for human use containing high concentrations of estradiol pursuant to Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 2 October 2014 is cancelled.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2015 —

Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T‑553/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14, 17)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Composite mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark Extra (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 21)

5. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 218/2014‑5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Borde and Carbonium v Commission

(Case T‑314/14)

‛Action for annulment — Intra-ACP programme of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) — Expert service agreements — Framework contract concerning a programme evaluation mission — Request for an expert’s mission to be terminated — Act forming part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action for annulment of letters sent by an institution to a contractor proposing replacement of an expert involved in the performance of a framework contract — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 288 TFEU) (see paras 28-30, 33, 35)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s requests of 19 and 20 February 2014 to terminate Mr Borde’s assignment as an expert involved in the performance of framework contract EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/Multi concerning a mission for the evaluation of the Intra-ACP (Africa, Caribbean and Pacific) programme of the Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Action before the General Court — Possibility to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling beforehand on the objections of inadmissibility raised by the defendant (see para. 13)

2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision by Committee on Petitions of the Parliament to take no further action — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient (Arts 227 TFEU and 296 TFEU; Internal Rules of the European Parliament, Art. 201(8)) (see paras 14-19)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament of 16 April 2014 whereby that Committee declared the petition presented by the applicant on 26 June 2013 inadmissible on the ground that it did not fall within the sphere of activity of the European Union.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Magyar Bencés Kongregáció Pannonhalmi Főapátság is ordered to pay the costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene by the Slovak Republic and by Hungary.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 December 2015 —

CompuGroup Medical v OHIM — Schatteiner (SAM)

(Case T‑850/14)

‛Action for annulment — Community trade mark — Time-limit for bringing an action — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal to the electronic account at OHIM of the applicant’s representative — Out of time — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Probative value of the evidence — Solemn declarations (see para. 17)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by email — Calculation of time-limits — Date of receipt (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 65(2)) (see paras 18-20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2014 (Case R 818/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Simon Schatteiner and CompuGroup Medical AG.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2015 —

Italy v Commission

(Case T‑636/14)

‛Language regime — Vacancy notice for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union — Language requirements in the module for the online submission of applications — Alleged divergence with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union with reference to a website for the submission of candidatures — Website limiting the choice of language for communication, despite the possibility indicated in the vacancy notice of using one of the official languages — Fact not justifying annulment of the vacancy notice (Council Regulations No 1 and No 2965/94, Arts 4(1)(b), and 9(1)) (see paras 21, 25-27)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Vacancy Notice COM/2014/10356 for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (OJ 2014, C 185 A, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.