ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T‑494/14

Oleksandr Klymenko

v

Council of the European Union

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Admissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well-founded action’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber), 10 June 2016

Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Period starting to run as from the fourteenth day following that publication (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1); Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014)

European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures taken having regard to the situation in Ukraine — Ambit of the review — Proof the measure well-founded — Obligation on the competent EU authority to establish, in the event of challenge, that the grounds held against the persons or entities concerned well-founded (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP; Council Regulation No 208/2014)
17

It is therefore only against a decision adversely affecting the applicant, that is to say, according to the very wording of Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation No 1173/2011, the Council’s decision to impose a fine on a Member State, that an action may be brought by the latter under Article 263 TFEU, it being noted that in implementation of Article 261 TFEU, Article 8(5) of the regulation confers unlimited jurisdiction on the EU judicature allowing it to ‘annul, reduce or increase the fine so imposed’. Any legal defects vitiating the measures preceding the Council’s adoption of such a decision, beginning with those relating to the initiation of an investigation by the Commission, may only be relied upon in that action (see, to that effect, judgment of 7 April 1965 in Weighardt v Commission of the EAEC, 11/64, ECR, EU:C:1965:38, and judgment in IBM v Commission, cited in paragraph 13 above, EU:C:1981:264, paragraph 12; order in Schneider Electric v Commission, cited in paragraph 12 above, EU:2006:34, paragraph 45). Contrary to the Kingdom of Spain’s submission, it is therefore only at such a stage that the issue of the legal basis permitting the Commission to investigate the events prior to 13 December 2011, the date of entry into force of Regulation No 1173/2011, may, if appropriate, be examined.
46

It is true, as the applicant submits in its reply to the written questions put by the General Court, that the Court of Justice, in its judgment of 9 September 2015 in Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission (C‑506/13 P, EU:C:2015:562), criticised the Commission for using ambiguous wording in the debit note. However, as the General Court has pointed out, such information on the interest which will accrue on the debt established as receivable if it is not paid by the final date for payment, the possible recovery by offsetting or by calling in any previously provided guarantee, as well as the possibility of enforcement and inclusion in a database accessible to the authorising officers of the EU budget, even if it is drafted in a way which could give the impression that it is a definitive act of the Commission, could, in any event and by its very nature, only be information provided in preparation for an act of the Commission related to the enforcement of the debt established as receivable, since in the debit note the Commission does not adopt a position as to the means which it intends to employ in order to recover that debt, increased by default interest accruing from the final date for payment fixed in the debit note (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2008 in Cestas v Commission, T‑260/04, EU:T:2008:115, paragraphs 74 to 76, and order of 12 October 2011 in Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission, T‑353/10, EU:T:2011:589, paragraph 30).
Order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 17 December 2021 – Georgios Legakis and Others v Council

(Case T‑765/14)

(Non-contractual liability – Economic and monetary policy – Stability support programme for Cyprus – Euro Group Statements of 16 and 25 March 2013 concerning Cyprus – Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013 concerning Cyprus – Mistaken designation of the defendant – Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the defendant – Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure – Inadmissibility – Limits – Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty – Absence – Court obliged to identify the defendant – Absence – Misinterpretation of capacity to act as defendant by the applicant (Art. 268 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court (1991), Art. 44(1)(b)) (see paras 45-47, 50, 52, 54-58)

2. Actions for damages – Subject matter – Claim for compensation for damage caused by the Euro Group – Intergovernmental body of an informal nature – No competence of its own – Not a body, office or agency of the EU – Inadmissibility (Arts 3 and 13(1) TEU; Arts 119(2), 137, 268 and 340, second para., TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties, Art. 1) (see paras 74-85)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Euro Group Statements of 16 and 25 March 2013 and the Statement of the President of the Euro Group of 21 March 2013.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
9

In the present case, the application for interpretation of the order in the main proceedings relates to point 3 of the operative part thereof, which expressly concerns costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the application, while point 4 of the operative part of the order in the main proceedings expressly concerns costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification. It is apparent from paragraph 96 of the order in the main proceedings that the Court ruled on the costs of the case pursuant to Article 134(2) of the Rules of Procedure, under which, where there is more than one unsuccessful party, the Court is to decide how the costs are to be shared. Consequently, in paragraph 97 of the order in the main proceedings, having noted that the Council had been unsuccessful in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application, the Court ordered the Council to pay the costs relating to that claim, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant, and the applicant to pay the costs relating to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification, in accordance with the form of order sought by the Council.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 30 April 2015 —

Star Light v Council and Commission

(Case T‑46/15)

‛Actions for annulment — Letter from the Commission allegedly informing the applicant of its interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Measure not open to an action — Actions for damages — Application initiating proceedings — Disregard of formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measure producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure of the Commission giving its interpretation of a legislative text — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-26)

2. Judicial proceedings — 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 — Action for compensation for damage caused by an EU institution — No indications as to the character and extent of the damage suffered or as to the causal link — 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 27-29, 31)

Re:

APPLICATION for: (1) annulment of the letter of 1 December 2014 from one of the heads of unit of the Directorate General ‘Climate Action’ from the European Commission allegedly informing the applicant of its interpretation of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and Council of 16 April 2014, on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195), and; (2) compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

21 September 2015

Carlo De Nicola

v

European Investment Bank (EIB)

‛Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Psychological harassment — Inquiry procedure — Report of the Committee of Inquiry — Incorrect definition of psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the EIB not to follow up the complaint’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 November 2014 in De Nicola v EIB (F‑52/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:243), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Carlo De Nicola is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

Summary

Appeal — Interest in bringing proceedings — Condition — Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it (Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9) Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Subject-matter — Directions to the administration — Inadmissibility Actions brought by officials — Unlimited jurisdiction — Compensation for material harm suffered by reason of an unlawful act of the administration — Assessment — Criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1); Staff Regulations, Art. 91(1))
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 8, 10)

2. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see para. 9)

3. Application 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 documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d), and 156(4)) (see paras 11, 12)

4. 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 liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company — Loss capable of being subsequently remedied by means of an action for compensation — Not irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 156(2) and (3)) (see paras 15-17, 19, 22, 25)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage capable of affecting a general economic sector — Action brought not by a public law body but by individuals — Obligation to claim individual damage (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 20, 21)

6. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Lack of diligence by the applicant taken into account (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 23, 24)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 L 125, p. 36) in so far as that decision encompasses grapevine varieties grown in the Italian province of Lecce.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2016 — Binca Seafoods v Commission

(Case T‑94/15)

‛Action for annulment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 — No extension of the transitory measure concerning aquaculture animals laid down in Article 95(11) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 — Lack of locus standi — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action not capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 71-73)

2. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Maintenance of the effects of the contested measure until its replacement within a reasonable period — Justification on grounds of legal certainty (Art. 264, second para., TFEU) (see para. 78)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1358/2014 of 18 December 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the origin of organic aquaculture animals, aquaculture husbandry practices, feed for organic aquaculture animals and products and substances allowed for use in organic aquaculture (OJ 2014 L 365, p. 97).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 January 2016 —

Permapore v OHIM — José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins (Terraway)

(Case T‑277/15)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Terraway — Earlier national and international word marks TERRAWAY — Partial rejection of the opposition — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring the appeal deemed not to have been filed — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law’

Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Form of appeal and period within which it must be brought — Payment of the appeal fee outside the time-limit (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 60; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49(3)) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 (Case R 2496/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between José Joaquim Oliveira II — Jardins & Afins Lda and Permapore Ltd.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Permapore Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 June 2016 —

Beele Engineering v EUIPO (WE CARE)

(Case T‑222/15)

‛EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark WE CARE — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Definition — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Distinctive character — Application of specific criteria for assessment — Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 17-19)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Slogan with a fantasy character (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 20)

4. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Marks constituted of advertising slogans — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 21, 22)

5. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark WE CARE (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 30, 33-37, 40, 42-44, 46-48)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Scope of protection of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 32)

7. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 54)

8. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Decisions by national authorities not binding on EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 58)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2015 (Case R 1933/2014-1), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign WE CARE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 April 2016 —

Portugal v Commission

(Case T‑550/15)

‛Action for annulment — EAGF and EAFRD — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Point from which time starts to run — Delay — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Mandatory — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Commission decision excluding certain expenses incurred by Member States from EU financing under EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Subsequent publication of the decision in the Official Journal — No effect (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU) (see paras 20-23, 25-28, 31-33, 36-38, 40)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Notification — Concept (Arts 263, sixth para., TFEU and 297(2), third subpara., TFEU) (see para. 24)

3. Acts of the institutions — No general obligation to inform the addressees of measures of the judicial remedies available and of the time-limits (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU) (see para. 39)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as that decision excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Case T‑384/15

EDF Luminus

v

European Parliament

‛Arbitration clause — Electricity supply contract CNT (2009) No 137 — Payment by the Parliament of the regional contribution made by the applicant to the Brussels-Capital Region and calculated on the basis of the power made available to the Parliament — No contractual obligation — No obligation under national law’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Second Chamber), 13 September 2016

Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Contract to supply electricity to buildings of an EU institution providing for the latter to pay a contribution — Finding by the Court of Justice that the Member State concerned failed to fulfil obligations by refusing to grant the EU institutions exemption from that contribution — Application by the EU judicature, in relation to the institution concerned, of national provisions laying down an obligation to pay the contribution — Precluded — Compliance with the authority of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the Court of Justice (Art. 272 TFEU) Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court to hear a counterclaim for payment — Basis — No jurisdiction of the General Court to hear an action for a declaration unconnected with the contract (Arts 256(1) TFEU and 272 TFEU)