ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 2016 —

Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA

(Case T‑669/15)

‛Actions for annulment — Inclusion as supplier of an active substance on the list provided for in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — No direct concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concerning registration of a company as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1), first subpara., of Regulation No 528/2012 — Action brought by companies appearing on that list as suppliers of the said substance — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 528/2012, Art. 95(1), first subpara., and (2)) (see paras 29, 33, 36, 37)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope other than legislative acts — Decision of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concerning registration of a company as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1), first subpara., of Regulation No 528/2012 — Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 528/2012, Art. 95(1), first subpara., and (2)) (see paras 78-80)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of ECHA of 16 July 2015 concerning the inclusion of the company BASF SE, established in Germany, as supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Oxea GmbH and BASF SE.

3. Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, Schülke & Mayr GmbH and Diversey Europe Operations BV are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) except for those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.
Judicial proceedings — Objection of inadmissibility — Decision to join the application for a separate ruling on the objection of inadmissibility to the substance — Action dismissed by reasoned order as inadmissible — Lawfulness

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 130(6))

(see paras 37, 38)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition)

3 September 2019 ( *1 )

(Rectification)

In Case T‑673/15,

Guardian Europe Sàrl, established in Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by F. Louis, lawyer, and C. O’Daly, Solicitor,

applicant,

v

European Union, represented by:

(1) European Commission, represented by N. Khan, A. Dawes and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents,

(2) Court of Justice of the European Union, represented by J. Inghelram and K. Sawyer, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant because of, first, the length of the proceedings in the case giving rise to the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T‑82/08, EU:T:2012:494), and, secondly, the infringement of the principle of equal treatment in Commission Decision C(2007) 5791 final of 28 November 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [101 TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39165 — Flat glass) and in the judgment of 27 September 2012, Guardian Industries and Guardian Europe v Commission (T‑82/08, EU:T:2012:494),

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, I. Labucka, E. Bieliūnas (Rapporteur), V. Kreuschitz and I.S. Forrester, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 The Court delivered a judgment on 7 June 2017 (Guardian Europe v European Union, T‑673/15, EU:T:2017:377).

2 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, clerical mistakes found in paragraph 64 of that judgment.

On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) hereby orders:

In paragraph 64 of the judgment, in the version in the language of the case, ‘… by virtue of abuse of process’ must be read instead of ‘… by virtue of misuse of powers’.

Luxembourg, 3 September 2019. E. Coulon Registrar S. Papasavvas President

( *1 ) Language of the case: English.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 November 2016 — SureID v EUIPO (SUREID)

(Case T‑128/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark SUREID — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Aim—Need to preserve availability (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 15)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept—Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-19)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark SUREID (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 22, 32, 33)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2016 (Case R 1478/2015-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign SUREID as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
3.

Agriculture—Uniform legislation—System of traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG)—Regulation No 1151/2012—Application for inclusion in the TSG register of the name of a product or foodstuff—Opposition proceedings—Act of opposition lodged with the Member State of residence—Time-limit of three months from the date of publication of the application for inclusion in the Official Journal for the Member State to notify the said act to the Commission—Non-compliance with time-limit—No obligation on the Commission to take account of the date on which the act of opposition lodged (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012, Art. 51(1), first and second subparas) (see paras 35, 38, 39)
The Member States are responsible for those interests that are regarded as general interests at national level. Consequently, Member States may defend them in proceedings for interim measures and may request interim measures by asserting, inter alia, that the contested measure could seriously jeopardise the performance of their State tasks and public order. The Member States, may, moreover, invoke damage affecting a sector of their economy, in particular when the contested measure is liable to have unfavourable repercussions on the level of employment and the cost of living. On the other hand, it is not sufficient for Member States to rely on the harm which would be suffered by a limited number of undertakings when those undertakings, taken individually, do not constitute an entire sector of the national economy.

A relaxation of the conditions applicable to assessing the existence of urgency has been permitted only in areas of litigation, namely restrictive measures in the matter of the common foreign and security policy, the award of public contracts and access to documents, where it is excessively difficult, if not impossible, for systemic reasons, to satisfy the conditions, as they are laid down in the Rules of Procedure and traditionally interpreted in the case-law.

Apart from those areas of litigation, the applicant is still required to demonstrate the imminence of serious and irreparable harm; a prima facie case, however strong, cannot make up for the lack of urgency.

(see paras 24, 37-43)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 June 2017 — Vankerckhoven-Kahmann v Commission

(Case T‑582/16)

(Civil service — Officials — Career reconstruction — Refusal to promote — Inter-institutional transfer — Classification in grade — Request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Reasonable period — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations—Definition—Request for information—Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1)) (see paras 32-35)

2. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Definition—Career sheet in the computerised individual file showing maintenance in grade—Not included (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2), and 91(1)) (see para. 42)

3. Officials—Reports procedure—Appraisal report—Nature and purpose (Staff Regulations, Art. 43) (see para. 43)

4. Actions brought by officials—Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations—Period for lodging—Reasonable time—Criteria for assessment (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1)) (see paras 47, 51, 57-59, 61, 62, 72, 75)

5. Actions brought by officials—Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations—Period for lodging—Reasonable time—To be considered of the Court’s own motion—Administration replying on the substance to a late request—Irrelevant (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(1)) (see paras 48, 77)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 17 April 2015 refusing to re-grade the applicant on her transfer and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 9 November 2015 rejecting her complaint lodged on 17 July 2015.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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—Order of examination and method of verification—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(4))

(see paras 10-12)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2017 — Karp v Parliament

(Case T‑833/16)

(Action for annulment and for damages — Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Classification — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Premature complaint — Failure to follow the pre-litigation procedure — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Time-limits—Point from which time starts to run—Notification (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2); Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Art. 117) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Actions brought by officials—Admissibility criteria—Regular conduct of the prior administrative procedure (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 24-26)

3. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Concept/Meaning/Definition—Offer of employment before the candidate’s acceptance—Not included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 31, 32)

4. Officials—Principles—Protection of legitimate expectations—Conditions—Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 36)

5. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Inadmissibility of the application for annulment entailing inadmissibility of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 40)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions classifying the applicant in function group I, grade 1, under the contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant concluded on 25 February 2015, and in function group II, grade 4, step 1, under the contract of employment as contract agent concluded on 12 May 2016 and, secondly, seeking compensation for the damages allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those classifications.

Operative part

1. The request for an expedited procedure is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
EU institutions—Right of public access to documents—Regulation No 1049/2001—Subject-matter—Exceptions to the right of access to documents—Strict interpretation and application

(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, fourth and eleventh recitals and Arts 1 and 4)

(see para. 20)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 —

Piper Verlag v EUIPO (THE TRAVEL EPISODES)

(Case T‑164/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for figurative EU trade mark THE TRAVEL EPISODES — Absolute ground for refusal — Application for alteration — Act not amenable to adoption by the Board of Appeal — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

EU trade mark—Appeals procedure—Action before the EU judicature—Jurisdiction of the General Court—Amendment of a decision by the Office—Assessment having regard to the competences conferred on the Board of Appeal

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Arts 45, 64(1), 65(3), 131 and 132(1))

(see paras 14-19, 22-25)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2016 (Case R 1099/2015-4) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign THE TRAVEL EPISODES as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 2018 — QF v Commission

(Case T‑846/16)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain professional football clubs — Preferential tax rate applied in connection with corporate tax — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility))

1. Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings—Application devoid of purpose—No need to adjudicate (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Actions for annulment—Interest in bringing proceedings—Meaning—Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant—Interest having to subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 25)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 4046 final of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs.

Operative part

1. The application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate is dismissed.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. There is no longer any need to rule on the applications to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Spain and Fútbol Club Barcelona.

4. QF shall pay the costs.
Case T‑170/16

Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, SLU

v

European Commission

(Actions for annulment — State aid — Tax advantages granted by a territorial entity within a Member State — Aid scheme declared to be incompatible with the internal market — Implementation of the decision — Obligation to examine the individual situation of the recipients — Commission’s failure to adopt a position — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

Summary — Order of the General Court (First Chamber), 11 October 2017

In order to determine whether a measure produces binding legal effects within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the substance of that measure must be examined. The existence of such effects must be established by looking at their substance, in particular on the perception that its recipients might have. By nature such perception has a subjective nature. The conditions for a successful action cannot depend of elements which may vary according to the authorities, the undertakings or individuals. (see paras 68, 114, 115)

When the Commission is faced with an aid scheme, it is not required to examine the aid granted in individual cases on the basis of that scheme. It may confine itself to examining the general characteristics of the scheme in question without being required to examine each particular case in which it applies. Where the Commission rules in a general and abstract way on a scheme of State aid, which it declares incompatible with the internal market, and orders recovery of the amounts received under that scheme, it is for the Member State to verify the individual situation of each undertaking concerned by such a recovery operation. (see paras 70, 71)

If a Member State encounters unforeseen or unforeseeable difficulties in executing the recovery decision it must notify the Commission. The Commission’s letters to the national authorities in the context of the implementation of a Commission decision declaring an aid scheme unlawful and incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of the aid concerned, but which does not identify the individual recipients of that aid and does not determine the specific amounts to be recovered, are devoid of any binding scope. In such a context, the Commission merely expresses its opinion as to whether that implementation is acceptable from the point of view of the European Union of the measure proposed by the Member State with regard to the difficulties faced by the latter. (see paras 72, 74, 75)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 February 2019 –

Miserini Johansson v EIB

(Case T‑870/16)

(Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Prolonged or repeated absence on account of a non-occupational accident or disease — Remuneration reduced after 12 months of absence — Article 33 of the EIB Staff Regulations — Procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease)

1. Action for annulment — Admissibility — Decision to dismiss the action on the merits without ruling on admissibility — Discretion of the Courts of the Union (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 30)

2. Officials — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Remuneration — Reduction after twelve months of prolonged absence due to disease — Application in the case of diseases other than occupational diseases — Procedure for recognising the occupational origin of the ongoing disease — Irrelevant (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 33) (see paras 32-36, 38, 39)

3. Officials — Actions — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 42, 43)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, primarily, annulment of a decision of the EIB dated 25 January 2016 and compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm associated with that decision and, in the alternative, solely compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm claimed in the main action and reimbursement of the costs incurred in connection with the health problems developed as a result of the severe stress suffered by the applicant and which are allegedly not reimbursed by the EIB’s health insurance scheme.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
31

Fourthly, it should be stated that the principles underpinning the obligation that the application be signed by a lawyer are met in the present case, that is to say, the need to ensure that the responsibility for, and the contents of, that procedural document is borne by a person entitled to represent the applicant before the courts of the Union (see, to that effect order of 12 March 2014 in xacom Comunicaciones, T‑252/13, not published, EU:T:2014:163, paragraph 18 and case-law cited) and to guarantee the authenticity of the procedural document and exclude the risk that it is not, in reality, the work of the author authorised for that purpose (see, to that effect order of 6 October 2015 in Marpefa v OHIM, C‑181/15 P, not published, EU:C:2015:678, paragraph 22). Mr Alexiadis is authorised to represent the applicant before the courts of the Union, as stated in paragraphs 25 and 28 above, and it is not disputed that he is the author or one of the authors of the application.
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—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief—Balancing of all the interests involved

(Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 16-19)
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—Order of examination and method of verification—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(4))

(see paras 10-13)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2018 — SD v EIGE

(Case T‑263/17)

(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Fixed-term contracts — Decision not to renew — Request for renewal having the same purpose as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Meaning—Classification for the courts to assess—Act which adversely affects an official may be the subject of only one complaint (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 28, 39)

2. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Time-limits—Mandatory—To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 40, 41)

3. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Inadmissibility of the application for annulment entailing inadmissibility of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 45)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the implied decision of EIGE dated 26 August 2016 rejecting the Applicant’s request dated 26 April 2016 for a second renewal of his contract of employment and, where necessary, annulment of the decision of EIGE of 20 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 October 2016 against the implied decision of 26 August 2016 and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.