ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

1. Appeals — Pleas in law — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Inadmissibility — Review by the General Court of the assessment of the facts and the evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 257 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

2. Actions brought by officials — Pleas in law — Misuse of powers — Concept — Burden of proof borne by the official

3. Judicial proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Measures of inquiry — Discretion of the Courts of the Union — Scope

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 19)

See:

T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-B-I‑37 and II-B-I‑267, paras 60-62 and the case-law cited therein

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 26)

See:

C‑274/11 and C‑295/11 Spain v Council [2013] ECR, para. 33 and the case-law cited therein

3. The assessment of the appropriateness of adopting a measure of organisation of procedure or a measure of inquiry, for the purposes of the decision which the court must make, is a matter for the court, not the parties. However, whilst it is true that a party cannot require the Courts of the European Union to adopt a measure of organisation of procedure or a measure of inquiry, it is none the less true that the court cannot draw inferences from the absence of certain items in the file until it has exhausted all the means provided for in its rules of procedure to obtain production of those items from the relevant party.

(see paras 39-40)

See:

T‑560/08 P Commission v Meierhofer [2010] ECR II‑1739, paras 61 and 62
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 October 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission

(Case T-466/11)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard — Measures implementing the Commission’s decision finding the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering that it be repaid — Inadmissibility’

1. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Application initiating proceedings not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 19-22)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which national authorities communicated the contested measure to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the contents — Action brought after expiry of the time-limit — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 24-26)

3. Proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Documents constituting the contested decision — Documents not identified by the applicant — Inadmissibility of the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), 64 and 65) (see paras 28, 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission letter C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010 relating to ’State aid case CR 16/2004 — Implementation of the negative Decision with recovery concerning State aid in favour of [the company Ellinika Nafpigeia AE] — Invocation by Greece of Article 346 paragraph 1(b) TFEU and proceedings under Article 348 paragraph 1 TFEU’, as supplemented by the documents and other material on the file of which the applicants became partially aware in June 2011.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application by Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas for leave to intervene.

3. Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

—

Interest in bringing proceedings

—

Need for an actual and current interest

—

Action against regulations concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

—

Applicant neither the addressee of the contested measures nor individually and/or directly concerned by them

—

Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 14-18

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 11), of Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1), of Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273, and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 218, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Mr Nizar Assaad is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 May 2011 – Cahier and Others v Council and Commission

(Case T-195/11 R)

Interim proceedings – Non-contractual liability – Application for interim measures – Inadmissible in part – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Action brought against the measure forming the subject-matter of the application for suspension – Action for suspension of a provision of a regulation – Main action limited to a claim for compensation – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Claim for interim relief submitted by several applicants – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-20)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Alleged loss arising from measures imposing pecuniary obligations at national level – National rights of action – Effect (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 21-22)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures and suspension of operation of Article 28 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1), as maintained in force by Article 128(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine, amending Regulations (EC) No 1493/1999, (EC) No 1782/2003, (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 3/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2392/86 and (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2008 L 148, p. 1).

Operative part

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

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — Minimum requirements — Action not giving figures for the loss suffered or justifying that omission — Manifest 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 13-15, 17, 20, 21, 24)
Order of the Judge hearing applications for interim measures of 28 September 2011 – Safa Nicu Sepahan v Council

(Case T-384/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Common foreign and security policy – Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation – Freezing of funds and economic resources – Application for interim measures – Lack of urgency

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 – Balancing of all the interests involved – 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 12-14)

2. Applications 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 – None (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19-25)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Non-material damage not being capable of better remedy in interim proceedings than in the main proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26-27)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures, including suspension of operation of point 19 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26), in so far as the list of persons and entities whose funds and economic resources are frozen includes an entity designated under the name of ‘Safa Nicu’.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 25 January 2012 – Euris Consult v Parliament

(Case T-637/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Public services contract – Tendering procedure – Services of translation into Maltese – Rejection of a tender – Arrangements for communication – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Loss of opportunity – No serious and irreparable damage – No urgency

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 – Balancing of all the interests involved – 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 10-11)

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 – Financial viability (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 15-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Loss of opportunity through exclusion from a tendering procedure – Loss not in itself constituting serious damage – Assessment of actual situation (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 20-21)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity through exclusion from a tendering procedure – Damage capable of full remedy in the context of an action for compensation (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant – Applicant’s own interests affected – Interests of employees of the applicant company affected – Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 26)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 October 2011 in the tendering procedure (MT/2011/EU) for the provision of translation services into Maltese (OJ S 56 090372) and rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 June 2012 —

Hungary v Commission



(Case T-37/11)

Action for annulment — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Contribution to Hungary in respect of the period from 2004 to 2006 — Recovery of part of the amount paid — Challengeable act — Inadmissibility

1. Procedure — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Reference in the application to a measure preliminary to that challenged — Reference not excluding the possibility of identifying the subject-matter of the dispute (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 25-27)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Temporary instrument intended to finance actions at the new external borders of the European Union for the purpose of the implementation of the Schengen acquis and border control (Schengen Facility) — Commission debt note recovering sums unjustifiably paid, following the final report of the Commission on clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006 — Debit note merely an implementing measure of an earlier decision, the obligation to repay having arisen not at the time of the issuing of the debit note but at the time of the adoption of the final report — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility (2003 Act of Accession, Art. 35) (see paras 33, 34, 40-42, 60)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of debit note No 3241011280 issued by the Commission on 28 October 2010 after the final report on the clearance of the accounts of the Schengen Facility concerning aid paid to Hungary during the period from 2004 to 2006.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
32

If the applicant’s argument – set out in the part of its pleadings dealing with the interest in bringing proceedings – that dismissal of the present action as inadmissible is tantamount to depriving it of effective judicial protection must be interpreted as also being invoked in support of its standing as a person to whom the contested decision is of individual concern, it must be borne in mind that the European Union is based on the rule of law and the acts of its institutions are subject to review of their compatibility with the Treaty and with the general principles of law, which include fundamental rights. Individuals are therefore entitled to effective judicial protection of the rights they derive from the European Union’s legal order. However, in the present case, the applicant is not in the least deprived of any effective judicial protection. Even if the present action is declared inadmissible, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from requesting the national court, in the course of the domestic proceedings whose existence it alleges, in which pleas are raised putting in issue the absence of a recovery obligation which the applicant enjoys under the contested decision, to make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU on the validity of the contested decision in so far as it finds that the scheme at issue is incompatible (see, to that effect, Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). Contrary to the applicant’s contention, the existence of other actions before this Court against Article 1(1) of the contested decision does not impair such judicial protection. Either the Court will annul that provision, and that annulment will be binding on the national courts, or it will dismiss the actions and the national court’s obligation to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in case of doubt as to the validity of the provision in question will remain (see, to that effect, Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, 4225, paragraph 15).
1

Under Article 8 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), concerning the processing of confirmatory applications: ‘1. A confirmatory application shall be handled promptly. Within 15 working days from registration of such an application, the institution shall either grant access to the document requested and provide access in accordance with Article 10 within that period or, in a written reply, state the reasons for the total or partial refusal. In the event of a total or partial refusal, the institution shall inform the applicant of the remedies open to him or her, namely instituting court proceedings against the institution and/or making a complaint to the Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles [263 TFEU] and [228 TFEU], respectively. 2. In exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the time-limit provided for in paragraph 1 may be extended by 15 working days, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons are given. 3. Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit shall be considered as a negative reply and entitle the applicant to institute court proceedings against the institution and/or make a complaint to the Ombudsman, under the relevant provisions of the [FEU] Treaty.’
12

The contested decision declares the scheme at issue to be incompatible with the internal market where it applies to the acquisition of shareholdings in companies established outside the European Union (Article 1(1) of the contested decision). Article 1(2) and (3) of the contested decision, however, permits the scheme at issue to continue to apply, by virtue of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to acquisitions of shareholdings which took place before the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation procedure on 21 December 2007, and to acquisitions of shareholdings, the completion of which, requiring the approval of a regulatory authority to which the operation had been notified before that date, took place irrevocably before 21 December 2007. Article 1(4) and (5) of the contested decision permits, moreover, the scheme at issue to continue to apply to acquisitions of shareholdings in companies established in China, India or in other countries where the existence of explicit legal obstacles to cross-border business combinations is shown, those acquisitions having been made up to the time of the publication of that decision in the Official Journal of the European Union on 21 May 2011, and to such acquisitions of shareholdings, the completion of which, requiring the approval of a regulatory authority to which the operation had been notified before that date, took place irrevocably before 21 May 2011.
10

In that regard, first, the EFTA Authority notes that the case concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1), and of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). Second, it notes that the control of anti-competitive practices falls within one of the fields of application of the EEA Agreement, since the provisions of Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement correspond, in essence, to those of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, and since Article 55 of the EEA Agreement gives the EFTA Authority the responsibility of examining anti-competitive practices in a manner identical to examinations carried out by the Commission within the European Union. In the same way, Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice corresponds, in essence, to Regulation No 1/2003. The EFTA Authority adds that it is clear from the case-law of the EFTA Court that the stipulations of the EEA Agreement must be interpreted in the light of fundamental rights, of which the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights are important sources of interpretation.
Keywords



Keywords

Procedure — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see para. 7)

2. 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. 8)

3. Applications for interim measures — Formal requirements — Submission of applications — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Pleas in law not set out in the application and pleadings — General reference to other documents — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(3)) (see paras 9, 10)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Scope of the burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 12-17)