ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 March 2006 – Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France v Commission

(Case T-454/05 R)

Application for interim measures – Directive 91/414/EEC – Admissibility

Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Not relevant – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), second para.) (see para. 46)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the suspension of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2005 and, secondly, for an order for interim measures concerning the administrative procedure conducted before the Commission for the inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 3 April 2006 − The International Institute for the Urban Environment v Commission

(Case T-74/05)

Research and technological development programme entitled ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation’ – Community financing – Articles 230 EC and 238 EC – Arbitration clause – Action for annulment – Admissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Action truly relating to a contractual dispute (Arts 230 EC and 249 EC) (see para. 33)

2. Procedure – Applications initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 58, 61)

Re:

ACTION brought under Articles 230 EC and 238 EC relating to the payment claimed by the applicant in connection with the performance of the two contracts IPS-1999-00016 and IPS-1999-00022, concluded under the research and technological development programme entitled ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 – ArchiMEDES v Commission

(Case T-396/05 R)

Interim proceedings – Application for interim measures – Arbitration clause – Admissibility – Urgency – None

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative conditions (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 35)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Not relevant – Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 44)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of the operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC) (see paras 50-52)

Re:

Suspension of the operation, first, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2007 – Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

(Case T-418/05)

Action for annulment – ERDF – Measure that cannot be the subject of an action – Preparatory measure – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measure (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 4253/88, Art. 24) (see paras 32-33, 35-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of decisions allegedly contained in two letters from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy of 11 and 23 August 2005, addressed to the Permanent Representation of the Italian Republic to the European Union, concerning the ineligibility for assistance from the European Regional Development Fund of a measure provided for in the Objective 2 Single Programming Document for the period 1997-1999 concerning the Region of Piedmont (Italy).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-20)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-50)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 52)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 67)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of certain provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing procedures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies and laying down methods of analysis for determining the quality of cereals (OJ 2006 L 290, p. 29).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Rejects the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Actionable measures

–

Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulations Nos 3605/93, 2223/96 and 2103/2005) (see paras 51-66, 71

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Eurostat press release No 48/2006 in so far as it contains a Commission (Eurostat) decision concerning the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘public administrations’ sector within the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 95).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 SA to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see paras 16-20)

2. Actions for annulment – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 230 EC and 288(2) EC) (see para. 21)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality (Art. 288(2) EC) (see paras 23-26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for compensation and application seeking the return of letters of guarantee.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Nikolaos Theofilopoulos to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by an addressee of a statement of objections against the final decision of the Commission referring to it only in the grounds and not in the operative part – Inadmissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 21-24)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Statement of objections – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 23)

3. Competition – Community rules – Application by national courts – Assessment of an agreement or practice examined by the Commission or having already been the subject-matter of a Commission decision – Conditions (Art. 81(1) EC) (see paras 30-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/534/EC of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 – Bitumen (Netherlands)) or, in the alternative, a reduction of the fine imposed on Heijmans NV and Hejmans Infrastructur BV.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Wegenbouwmaatschappij J. Heijmans BV to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark

–

Relative grounds for refusal

–

Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services

–

Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33-36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005‑2) concerning opposition proceedings between Avensa AG and Altana Pharma AG.

Information relating to the case

>lt>8

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law;

2. Orders Altana Pharma AG to pay the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 4 September 2009 — Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

(Case T-174/06)

‛Non-contractual liability — OLAF investigations concerning irregularities in export refunds on beef and veal exported to Jordan — Communication to the national authorities of information on the facts capable of giving rise to criminal proceedings — National decision to recover the refunds — Provision of Guarantees — Action for damages — Limitation period — Continuing nature of the harm — Partial inadmissibility — Causation’

1. Actions for damages — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run (Arts 230 EC, 232, second para., EC and 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53) (see paras 46, 47, 55-57, 60, 61)

2. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 68, 69)

3. Non-contractual liability — Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 84-90)

Re:

ACTION for non-contractual damages seeking compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the communication to the Italian authorities of the findings of an investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), implicating the applicants, to ascertain whether certain refunds for beef and veal exported to Jordan were lawful.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulation No 1164/94, Art. 12(1)(h); Commission Regulation No 1831/94, Arts 5(2) and (7)) (see paras 37-52

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 3782 of 16 August 2006 on the cancellation of the financial assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for Project No 95/10/61/017 – Redevelopment of Grande Porto Sul – Subsistema de Gondomar.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Município de Gondomar to bear its own costs and those of the Commission, including the costs incurred in the application for interim measures.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 January 2007 – Theofilopoulos v Commission

(Case T-91/06)

Action for compensation – Application for return of letters of guarantee – Court of First Instance not having jurisdiction – Inadmissibility of action – Action clearly devoid of legal foundation

1. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see paras 16-20)

2. Actions for annulment – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 230 EC and 288(2) EC) (see para. 21)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Illegality (Art. 288(2) EC) (see paras 23-26)

Re:

ACTION for compensation and application seeking the return of letters of guarantee.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2006 – European Association of Importers and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and Others v Commission

(Case T-209/06 R)

Applications for interim measures – Application for interim measures and suspension of enforcement – Admissibility – Urgency – None

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Meaning (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32, 34-35)

Re:

APPLICATION for, first, suspension of enforcement of Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July 2006 amending Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protection measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and movements of certain live birds into the Community (OJ 2006 L 205, p. 28), and, second, the grant of any other necessary interim measures.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2008 – Arktouros v Commission

(Case T-260/06)

Action for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 – Removal of financial assistance granted for an ecological project – Decision ending the project and ordering reimbursement of sums paid by way of an advance – Confirmatory measure – Expiry of the period for bringing an action – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 52, 55‑56)

2. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming two decisions not challenged within the time-limits (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 57‑59)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2006) 3181 final of 6 July 2006 ending a project concerning conservation actions in the Northern Pindos National Park (Greece) (Ellas – LIFE03/NAT/GR/000089) and ordering reimbursement of the advance paid to the applicant in respect of the Community financial assistance which had been granted to it in implementation of Commission Decision C(2003) 2919 final of 4 September 2003.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 – Ayuntamiento de Madrid and Madrid Calle 30 v Commission

(Case T-177/06)

Provision of data relating to the excessive deficit procedure – Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 – European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 95) – Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 – Letter of the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) – Action for annulment – Act against which proceedings can be brought – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulations Nos 3605/93, 2223/96 and 2103/2005) (see paras 51-66, 71)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Eurostat press release No 48/2006 in so far as it contains a Commission (Eurostat) decision concerning the classification of Madrid Calle 30 in the ‘public administrations’ sector within the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 95).

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 8 September 2008 – Rath v OHIM – Grandel (Epican)

(Case T-374/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for registration of the Community word mark Epican – Earlier Community word mark EPIGRAN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 32-33, 60-61)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 1324/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Dr. Grandel GmbH and Matthias Rath.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Matthias Rath Community trade mark sought: Word mark Epican for goods and services in Classes 5, 30 and 32 – Application No 2524510 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dr. Grandel GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word Mark EPIGRAN, initially registered for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5, currently also registered for goods and services in Class 3 (Community mark No 560292) Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld; partial rejection of the application for registration Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division





Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law;
Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 14 July 2008 – Espinosa Labella and Others v Commission

(Case T-322/06)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2006/613/EC – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Challengeable act – Lack of direct effect – Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230, first para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(2), (5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Art. 1, second para., and Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (see paras 24-28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Directive 92/43, Arts 4(5) and 6; Commission Decision 2006/613, Annex 1) (see paras 35-40)

Re:

Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Artos de El Ejido’, which includes lands belonging to the applicants, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Manuel José Espinosa Labella, Josefa Labella Dávalos, María Pilar Espinosa Labella, María José Espinosa Labella, Tomasa Peñuela Ortiz, Tomás Espinosa Peñuela, Francisco José Espinosa Peñuela, Juan Manuel Espinosa Peñuela, María Lourdes Espinosa Peñuela, Adela Espinosa Peñuela, Jorge Jesús Espinosa Peñuela and the heirs of Rafael Espinosa Peñuela to bear their own costs and to pay those of the Commission;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11) (see paras 59-61

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part of the Commission’s Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period from 2008 to 2012 pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Fels-Werke GmbH, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co are ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 24-26, 28-31, 38-39

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend operation, on the one hand, of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund for the global grant ‘SGAIA’ pursuant to Decision C (95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995 and, on the other, of the alleged payment order contained in a debit note of 17 September 2007.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Procedural provisions

–

Allocation of costs (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 81(3) and (6), and 89(1); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 94(3) and (7)(d)(vi)) (see paras 29-35

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Case R 95/2007‑1) concerning opposition proceedings between The Masters Golf Company Ltd and Mr Wilhelm Stepek.

Information relating to the case

>lt>17

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Wilhelm Stepek to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation fixing for 2007 the total allowable catches for cod fishing in the areas covered by the regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 423/2004 and 41/2007) (see paras 64-79)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation fixing for 2007 the total allowable catches for cod fishing in the areas covered by the regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1367/2006; Council Regulations Nos 423/2004 and 41/2007; Council Decision 2005/370) (see paras 81-82)

3. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Misuse of powers – Seriousness of the failure of the institution concerned to fulfil obligations – No effective judicial protection against that failure – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 85-88)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Council Regulation No 41/2007 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1), in so far as it fixes the total allowable catches (‘TAC’) for 2007 in respect of the fishing of cod in the areas covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004 of 26 February 2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (OJ 2004 L 70, p. 8).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders WWF-UK Ltd to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.