ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for failure to act

—

Natural or legal persons

—

Measures of direct and individual concern to them

—

Commission not terminating a formal investigation procedure on aid

—

Right of a competitor undertaking to bring an action

—

Condition

—

Market position significantly affected (Art. 88(2) EC; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 34, 35, 42-44, 47-50, 55, 59, 60

)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2018 –

Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission

(Case T‑393/10 INTP)

(Proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Rectification — Failure to adjudicate)

1. Judicial proceedings — Interpretation of a judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 43; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 168(1)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Judicial proceedings — Rectification of judgment — Conditions for the admissibility thereof — Time-limit — Late submission of the application — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 164(2) and 165(2)) (see para. 24)

Re:

Request for interpretation of the judgment of 15 July 2015, Westfälische Drahtindustrie and Others v Commission (T‑393/10, EU:T:2015:515) and, in the alternative, application for rectification of and compensation for the failure to adjudicate in respect of that judgment.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2014 —

Global Steel Wire v Commission

(Joined Cases T‑429/10 and T‑578/10 and Case T‑438/12)

‛Actions for annulment — Competition — Cartels — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchange of sensitive commercial information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Decision amending the initial decision without affecting the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Partial manifest inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time the action brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Commission decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Action brought against a Commission decision amending the initial decision — Decision irrelevant to the amount of the fines imposed on the applicant — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 101 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 17-22)

Re:

APPLICATIONS for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and by the letter COMP/G2/DVE/nvz/79465 from the Commission’s Director-General for Competition of 25 July 2012.

Operative part

1. In Case T‑429/10, the form of order seeking annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 amending Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing steel) is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. In Case T‑578/10, the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The remainder of the pleas in law and forms of order sought is reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2010 – Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission

(Case T-353/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Financial assistance – Debit note for recovery of financial assistance – Application for suspension of execution – Failure to have regard to formal requirements – Inadmissibility

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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 9)

2. Applications for interim measures – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-11, 19)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – 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 paras 13-19)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of execution of a debit note issued by the Commission on 22 July 2010 for the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 415.20 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2010 – COLT Télécommunications France v Commission

(Case T-79/10 R)

Application for interim measures – State aid – Operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network – Compensation for public service costs – Decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute aid – 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 – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-16)

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 – Irremediable change in market share – Included (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30, 36-39, 41)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being remedied by the award of compensation in the main action (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 44)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 on a plan to grant compensation for public service costs of EUR 59 million for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the department of Hauts-de-Seine (France).

Operative part:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 March 2011 – Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)

(Case T-175/10)

Community trade mark – Representation of the applicant by a lawyer who is not a third party – Inadmissibility

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant – Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 18-19, 23-24)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2010 (Case R 1116/2009-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign FERTILITYINVIVO as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Milux Holding SA Community trade mark sought: Word mark FERTILITYINVIVO for goods in Classes 9, 10 and 44 Decision of the examiner: Application for a Community trade mark dismissed Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2010 – Uspaskich v Parliament

(Case T-507/10 R)

Interim measures – Waiver of the immunity of a member of the European Parliament – Application for suspension of operation

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – 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 13-15)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – No undermining of the right freely to exercise the parliamentary mandate and the proper function of the Parliament – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19, 26-27, 31-32)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures of the Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – Included (Art. 230, first para., EC; Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities) (see para. 24)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 7 September 2010 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2011 – Cross Czech v Commission

(Case T-252/10)

Action for annulment – Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities – Letter confirming the findings of an audit report and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure – Contractual and non-decision-making character of the letter – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 38-49)

2. Actions for annulment – Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute – Reclassification of the action – Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 272 TFEU) (see paras 61-64)

3. Procedure – Legal basis of an action – Choice a matter for the applicant not the Community judicature (see paras 63-64)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission letter of 12 March 2010, reference number INFSO-O2/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676, confirming the findings of financial audit report 09-BA74-006 concerning the financial statements declared by the applicant over the period 1 February 2005 to 30 April 2008 for three contracts concluded between the applicant and the Commission under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002-06), and informing the applicant of the next steps in the procedure.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2011 – Socitrel v Commission

(Case T-413/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of operation – Pecuniary damage – No exceptional circumstances – 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 10-11)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16, 18)

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 23 September 2011 – Vivendi v Commission

(Case T-568/10)

Actions for annulment – Refusal by the Commission to act against a Member State for alleged infringement of Article 106 TFEU – No measure open to challenge – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Not included – Inadmissibility (Arts 106(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 16-18, 25-26)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of the principle of consistency of EU policies – Infringement of the right to an effective remedy – None – Inadmissibility (Arts 7 TFEU and 106(3) TFEU) (see para. 19)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Refusal by the Commission to examine a complaint calling upon it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU – Infringement of Directive 2002/77 – None – Inadmissibility (Art. 106(3) TFEU; Commission Directive 2002/77) (see paras 22-24)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 1 October 2010 informing the applicant of its refusal to examine the complaint lodged by the applicant on 2 March 2009 seeking the opening of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC in respect of infringement by the French Republic of Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 December 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21) and, consequently, of Article 86(1) EC, by granting a regulatory advantage to France Télécom.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene by the French Republic and France Télécom.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 – Land Wien v Commission

(Case T-267/10)

Nuclear power – Application initiating proceedings – Action for annulment – Decision of the Commission not to take any further action in respect of a complaint concerning a project for extension of blocks of a nuclear power plant – Action for a declaration of failure to act – Failure by the Commission to send all documents requested relevant to that project – Formal requirements – Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court – Inadmissibility

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Lack of clarity – Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 17-20, 24-25)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Commission decision merely communicating information concerning the state of EU law in the area of nuclear safety – Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 28-30)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings – Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)

4. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Commission refusal to request the agreement of a Member State in order to send certain documents to the applicant – No obligation to act – Appropriate remedy – Action for annulment – Action for failure to act inadmissible (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2011, Arts 7 and 8) (see paras 41-45)

Re:

Firstly, in essence, annulment of the Commission decision of 25 March 2010 not to take any further action in respect of the applicant’s complaint concerning the project for extension of blocks 3 and 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in Slovakia and, secondly, an action in respect of failure to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since the Commission failed to grant the applicant full access to the documents requested relevant to that project, in breach of 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).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T‑228/10)

Action for annulment — State aid — Aid schemes allowing for the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection — (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-24, 26, 38)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Person belonging to a closed circle of persons — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31, 36-37, 40)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Assessment at the time the action brought (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 35)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Measure containing implementation measures at national level — Need to show that persons individually affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 42-45)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords



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 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 23)

3. Applications 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 – Loss capable of subsequent remedy by means of an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

4. Applications 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 para. 31)