ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 7 April 2022 — SS and ST v Frontex

(Case T-282/21) (1)

(Actions for failure to act - Right to asylum - Invitation to act - Position taken by Frontex - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 266/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: SS, ST (represented by: M. Van den Broeck and L. Lambert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (represented by: H. Caniard, S. Drew and W. Szmidt, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that Frontex unlawfully failed to adopt, under Article 46(4) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1052/2013 and (EU) 2016/1624 (OJ 2019 L 295, p. 1), a decision suspending or terminating its activities in the Aegean Sea region.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. SS, ST and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Order of the General Court of 25 March 2022 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-691/21) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Settlement procedure - Letter from the European Commission inviting an undertaking to express its interest in engaging in a settlement procedure - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Intermediary act - Inadmissibility)

(2022/C 222/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Berghe, T. Baumé and F. Jimeno Fernández, agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 27 October 2021, the applicants seek to have set aside the letter of the European Commission of 17 September 2021, by which the Commission invited the applicants to inform it, within two weeks, of their interest in engaging in a settlement procedure within the meaning of Article 10a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), as amended, regarding a potential infringement of Article 101 TFEU that they may have committed with other undertakings.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicant shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 10 May 2022 — Target Brands v EUIPO– The a.r.t. company b&s (art class)

(Case T-676/21) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands, Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 August 2021 (Case R 1596/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between The a.r.t. company b&s and Target Brands.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Target Brands, Inc. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 30 May 2022 — mBank v EUIPO — European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank)

(Case T-331/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 284/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: mBank S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Frydendahl and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: European Merchant Bank UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: G. Pranevičius, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, mBank S.A., seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 March 2021 (Case R 1845/2020-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between itself and the intervener, European Merchant Bank (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action

2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 2 August 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — SMB Swisspour (PUMA)

(Case T-622/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 398/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SMB Swisspour GmbH (Wildau, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 July 2021 (Case R 2493/2019-1).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Puma SE shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

(1) OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Order of the General Court of 28 June 2022 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-150/21) (1)

(Application for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China - Initiation of an investigation for circumvention of the existing anti-dumping measures making imports subject to registration - Imports of aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, originating in China - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 318/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand) Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong) (represented by: G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2162 of 18 December 2020 initiating an investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2020 L 431, p. 48).

Operative part of the order

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2. Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd are to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 22 November 2022 — Fieldpoint (Cyprus) v EUIPO (HYPERLIGHTOPTICS)

(Case T-800/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark HYPERLIGHTOPTICS - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Equal treatment - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2023/C 35/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Rath and S. Gebele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite and T. Klee, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 6 October 2021 (Case R 1166/2021-2).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Fieldpoint (Cyprus) LTD shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.
Order of the General Court of 19 October 2022 — Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ v EIB

(Case T-514/21) (1)

(Action for failure to act - Environment - Financing of the Trans Adriatic Pipeline - Resolution of the Board of Directors of the EIB approving the financing - Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Request for internal review - Answer given after the action was brought - Application for an injunction - Lack of jurisdiction - Plea of inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 463/64)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’ (Melendugno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calò, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 265 TFEU, the applicant asks the Court, first, to declare that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision and, second, to order the EIB to withdraw that loan.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on the first head of claim of the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No TAP’ seeking a declaration that the European Investment Bank (EIB) acted unlawfully by failing to act on its request for internal review of 19 December 2020 concerning the decision of the EIB of 6 February 2018 on the financing of the gas pipeline project from Greece to Italy through Albania and the Adriatic Sea and the loan agreement signed on 30 November 2018 pursuant to that decision.

2. The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

3. EIB is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Associazione ‘Terra Mia Amici No Tap’.

(1) OJ C 431, 25.10.2021.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-104/22 R)

(Interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - European Structural and Investment Funds - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Documents originating in a Member State - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)

(2022/C 294/45)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, A. Spina and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application, based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of the European Commission’s Decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from its authorities.

Operative part of the order

1. Operation of the European Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from the Hungarian authorities, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from those authorities.
Order of the President of the General Court of 3 March 2022 — Esedra v Parliament

(Case T-46/22 R)

(Interim measures - Public service contracts - Early childhood care services - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 171/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Esedra SRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Vastmans, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Pencheva and M. Kazek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for, first, a suspension of operation of the decision of the Parliament of 26 November 2021 to award the public service contract for the ‘Full management of the early childhood care facility of the European Parliament at Rue Wayenberg in Brussels’ to another tenderer and to reject the applicant’s tender and, second, an order requiring the Parliament to take the measures necessary to suspend the effects of the award decision or of the contract entered into following that decision.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 August 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-269/22 R)

(Interim relief - Medicinal products for human use - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Marketing authorisation for Dimethyl fumarate Polpharma - dimethyl fumarate - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)

(2022/C 398/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of the operation of Commission Implementing Decision C(2022) 3253 final of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Polpharma — dimethyl fumarate’ as a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 14 July 2022 — Telefónica de España v Commission

(Case T-170/22 R)

(Interim relief - Public contracts for services - Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA) - Application for interim measures - Lack of urgency)

(2022/C 340/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Blanco Carol, lawyers, and P. Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, suspension of the operation of the decision of the European Commission of 21 January 2022 relating to the Call for Tenders DIGIT/A 3/PR/2019/010, entitled ‘Trans-European Services for Telematics between Administrations (TESTA)’, informing the applicant that its tender was not successful in the procurement procedure and announcing the imminent signing of the contract with the successful tenderer and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to suspend the signing of that contract.

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The order of 1 April 2022, Telefónica de España v Commission (T-170/22 R), is cancelled.

3. There is no longer any need to rule on the application to intervene lodged by the company BT Global Services Belgium BV.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 8 November 2022 — Hahn Rechtsanwälte v Commission

(Case T-87/22) (1)

(2023/C 15/62)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.
Official Journal of the European Union

Order of the General Court of 14 October 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

(Case T-11/22) (1)

(2022/C 463/91)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 109, 7.3.2022.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

13 December 2007

Case F-130/05

Carlos Alberto Soares

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Restoration of career prospects – Absence of staff reports – Consideration of comparative merits – Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations – Admissibility of the action – New and substantive fact)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Soares seeks annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting his claim for a favourable reconstitution of his career.

Held: The application is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Time-limits

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An official cannot, by submitting a request to the appointing authority under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, revive for himself the possibility of lodging a complaint and an appeal against a decision which has become definitive upon the expiry of the time-limits laid down by the Staff Regulations, unless a new and substantive fact has occurred prior to the submission of the request.

In that respect, the fact that an official’s staff report was drawn up after the disputed promotion procedure does not constitute a new and substantive fact enabling him to contest a decision not to promote him, which has become definitive, as long as he was aware that the report had not been drawn up and that he could not therefore be taken into account in that promotion procedure. Since a decision not to promote an official can be disputed even in the absence of a staff report, there is nothing to stop the official in question from lodging a complaint against that decision on the ground that the failure to draw up his staff report placed him at a disadvantage.

(see paras 52, 57-58, 60)

See:

231/84 Valentini v Commission [1985] ECR 3027, para. 14

T-495/93 Carrer and Others v Court of Justice [1994] ECR‑SC I‑A‑201 and II‑651, para. 20; T-138/99 Verheyden v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I‑A‑219 and II‑1001, para. 43; T-70/98 Hilden v Commission [2002] ECR-SC I‑A‑57 and II‑265, para. 39
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Actions – Action for damages – Annulment of the illegal act in dispute – Whether appropriate reparation for non-material damage

(Staff Regulations, Art. 91)

1. It is clear from the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(5) of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, adopted by the Commission, that the administration has a duty to set goals and assessment criteria for the holder of the post. Under that provision, the formal interview that is held between the reporting officer and the holder of the post at the start of each appraisal procedure should cover not just the appraisal of that person’s performance during the reference period, which runs from 1 January to 31 December of the year preceding that in which the procedure is conducted, but also the setting of targets for the year following the reference period, those targets constituting the reference basis for assessing his efficiency. That duty is reiterated in the guide to appraisal which the Commission has adopted as a code of conduct.

Where no goals or assessment criteria have been set for the reference period in question, the administration cannot claim that the goals assigned for the previous reference period were extended on the ground that they did not include any date when they would cease to be valid.

(see paras 31-32, 37)

See:

190/82 Blomefield v Commission [1983] ECR 3981, para. 20

T-63/89 Latham v Commission [1991] ECR II‑19, para. 25; T‑269/01 Tatti v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑225 and II‑1093, para. 43

2. The annulment of an act of the administration which has been challenged by an official in itself constitutes appropriate and, in principle (that is to say, in the absence from that act of any expressly negative assessment of the applicant’s abilities likely to cause him damage), sufficient reparation for any non-material harm which the applicant may have suffered by reason of the annulled act.

(see para. 44)

See:

T-60/94 Pierrat v Court of Justice [1995] ECR-SC I‑A‑23 and II‑77, para. 62
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

9 October 2008

Case F-49/06

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – 2005 promotion procedure)

Application: brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Nijs seeks annulment of the decision not to promote him in 2005 and of ‘any connected and/or subsequent decision’, and an order for the Court of Auditors to compensate him for all the material and non-material harm he claims to have suffered as a result of the irregularities allegedly committed by the Court of Auditors.

Held: The action is dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs.

Summary

Procedure – Costs – Costs caused unreasonably or vexatiously

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 87(3), second subpara.)

The second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance must be applied and an official ordered to pay all the costs of the proceedings where he has put forward particularly unreasonable challenges largely based on conjecture and insinuations which are not relevant to the subject-matter of the action or any other pleadings, and from which certain passages have had to be removed because of their defamatory nature.

(see paras 81-82)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Judicial review – Limits

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

2. Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – Duty to state reasons – Scope

(Staff Regulations, Art. 43)

1. It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its assessment for that of the persons responsible for appraising the work of the official under appraisal. The institutions of the Community enjoy a wide discretion in appraising the work of their officials. Value judgements relating to officials in career development reports are not subject to review by the Tribunal except as regards any irregularities of form or manifest errors of fact vitiating the assessments made by the administration or any misuse of power.

(see para. 39)

See:

T-285/04 Andrieu v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-161 and II‑A‑2‑775, para. 99; T-249/04 Combescot v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-2-0000 and II-A-2-0000, para. 78

2. Particular care must be taken with the statement of reasons for the career development report in certain situations, particularly where the appeal assessor does not follow the recommendations of the Joint Evaluation Committee, where the career development report includes appraisals which are less favourable than those in a previous report, or where the report is drawn up late and the reporting officer is no longer the immediate superior who was acting as assessor during the period reported on .

(see para. 47)

See:

T-16/03 Ferrer de Moncada v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I‑A‑261 and II‑1163, paras 49, 50, 53 and 54; Combescot v Commission , para. 84