ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 March 2016 — Amrita and Others v Commission

(Case T‑439/15)

‛Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ — Any act of general scope save for legislative acts — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 19)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Concept of implementing measures — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Act comprising implementing measures (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 21, 27, 29)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Action of olive oil producing undertakings falling within the category of operators concerned by the decision without being individualised by the application in their regard of the provisions in question — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 31, 32)

Re:

ACTION for annulment 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 15 L 125, p. 36), where appropriate after having declined to apply Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (OJ 2000 L 169, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2016 —

Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission

(Case T‑178/15)

‛System of traditional specialities guaranteed — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Letter from the Commission informing the competent national authorities of their late lodging of their opposition measure — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126) (see paras 20, 21, 24, 32)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of 9 February 2015 from the Director of Directorate B ‘Multilateral relations and quality policy’ of the Commission’s ‘Agriculture and rural development’ Directorate General, with the reference Ares (2015)529719, informing the competent German authorities that their opposition measure under Article 51(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), which was lodged on 5 January 2015, was submitted after the deadline.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Case T‑584/15

Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA)

v

European Commission

‛Action for annulment — Application for registration of a protected designation of origin (‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’) — Decision to publish in the Official Journal, C series, an application for registration of a protected designation of origin pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Preparatory measure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility’

Summary — Order of the General Court (Second Chamber), 14 September 2016

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Decision to publish in the Official Journal an application for registration of a protected designation of origin — Act not intended to produce legal effects — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012, Arts 50(2), 51 and 52)

Only a measure which produces binding legal effects such as to affect the interests of an applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position is an act or decision which may be the subject of an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU. In the case of acts adopted by a procedure involving several stages of an internal procedure, in principle an act is open to review only if it is a measure which definitively lays down the position of the institution on the conclusion of that procedure, and not a provisional measure intended to pave the way for the final decision, and whose legal defects could reasonably be raised in an action against it.

Consequently, the Court will dismiss as inadmissible an annulment action brought against a Commission decision to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union an application for registration of a protected designation of origin pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation No 1152/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

In accordance with Article 50(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012, the purpose of the decision on ‘publication for opposition’ is, as the title indicates, to open the opposition procedure provided for in Article 51 of that regulation and, thus, to pave the way for the ‘decision on registration’ referred to in Article 52 of that regulation, which remains the final decision.

It follows that the decision on ‘publication for opposition’ referred to in Article 50(2) of Regulation No 1151/2012 is preparatory in relation to the ‘decision on registration’, so that only the latter decision is capable of producing legal effects such as to affect the interests of the applicant and, consequently, of being the subject of an action for annulment pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.

Furthermore, any legal defects contained in such a preparatory measure may be relied upon in an action directed against the definitive act for which the measure represents a preparatory step, provided the applicant demonstrates, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, that the requirements for admissibility of the action have been met.

(see paras 32-37, 48)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 17 October 2016 —

Orthema Service v EUIPO (Gehen wie auf Wolken)(Case T‑620/15)

(EU trade mark

‛Application for EU word mark Gehen wie auf Wolken — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept — 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 — Word mark Gehen wie auf Wolken (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 29, 32)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Overlap between the scope of the grounds for refusal set out in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b) and (c)) (see para. 28)

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. 35)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 September 2015 (Case R 404/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Gehen wie auf Wolken as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see para. 71)
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 April 2016 —

Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T‑140/16 R)

‛Interim measures — Member of the European Parliament — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — 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 — 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(3)) (see paras 7-9)

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 — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 14-16)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Decision of the European Parliament finding an obligation to recover allowances unduly paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Decision without executory force — No imminent risk of serious financial loss — No urgency (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 17, 20)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering the recovery from the applicant of a sum of 320026.23 euros, and of debit note No 2016-195 of 4 February 2016 adopted pursuant to that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 —

Walton v Commission

(Case T‑594/16)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Temporary agents — Severance grant — Revision of the calculation — Res judicata — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings—Res judicata—Scope—Inadmissibility of a second action—Conditions—Parties, subject-matter and cause of the two actions identical (see paras 30-32, 34)

2. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Correspondence between the complaint and the application—Same subject-matter and legal basis—Change in the legal basis of a claim—Not sufficient to characterise it as having a new cause of action (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 45, 46)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, seeking the annulment of the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment notified by the Commission’s letter of 15 March 2016 rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for revision of the calculation of the severance grant following his resignation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—‘Fumus boni juris’—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—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 19-21)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2017 —

L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)

(Case T‑181/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 18, 19)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Word mark MASTER PRECISE and figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 29, 36, 39, 40, 43, 52, 53)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Similarity of the marks concerned—Criteria for assessment—Composite mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 22, 27, 49)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU 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—Weighing elements of similarity or difference between the signs—Taking into account of the intrinsic characteristics of the signs or the conditions in which the goods or services are marketed—Make-up industry (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 46, 47)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 April 2017 —

Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission

(Case T‑101/16)

(Action for failure to act — State aid — Supply of timber — Preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber — Commission’s failure to adopt a position within a reasonable period of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Actions for failure to act—Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought—Concept—Refusal to act in accordance with the invitation to act—Included

(Art. 265, second para., TFEU)

(see paras 21, 22, 24)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period of time, in the context of the preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted to the applicant by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Appeal—Pleas in law—Pleas manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded—Dismissal at any point, by reasoned order, without an oral procedure

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 208)

(see para. 12)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 —

Cuallado Martorell v Commission

(Case T‑481/16 RENV)

(Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Assessment of the written test — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Possibility for a selection board to entrust the marking of the written tests to one of its members — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Decision adopted after reconsideration of a previous decision—Decision adopted by a competition selection board after reviewing the file of a candidate not admitted to the competition (Staff Regulations, Arts 90(2), and 91(1)) (see paras 42-44)

2. Officials—Competitions—Assessment of candidates’ performance—Selection Board’s discretion—Judicial review—Limits (Staff Regulations, Annex III) (see paras 52, 53)

3. Officials—Competitions—Selection Board—Refusal to communicate corrected written tests—Obligation to state reasons—Scope—Observance of the secrecy of proceedings (Staff Regulations, Art. 25 and Annex III, Art. 6) (see paras 54, 55)

4. Officials—Competitions—Selection Board—Recourse to markers—Lawfulness—Conditions (Staff Regulations, Annex III, Art. 3) (see paras 60, 61)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/130/08, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to admit the applicant to take part in the oral tests and not to include her on the reserve list.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 14 September 2009 regarding the issue of the applicant’s admission to the oral tests in question.

2. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it is directed against the decision of EPSO made on 23 July 2009 maintaining the eliminatory mark of 18/40 in final written test (c) and refusing to admit Ms Cuallado Martorell to the oral stage of the competition.

3. Ms Cuallado Martorell and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own respective costs in relation to the appeal proceedings before the General Court.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 February 2017 —

Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Commission and REA

(Case T‑137/16)

(Actions for annulment — Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2007-2013) — Decision of the REA — Identification of the defendant — Partial inadmissibility)

Actions for annulment—Admissibility criteria—Action against the author of the contested measure—Action for annulment of a measure of the Research Executive Agency (REA) formed against the Commission—Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU)

(see paras 18-24)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking: (1) annulment of the decisions of the REA to terminate Grant Agreement No 252908 for the COSSAR Project and to require the applicant to repay the financial assistance plus damages; and (2) reimbursement by the REA of the corresponding amounts plus interest from the date of payment up to the date of reimbursement.

Operative part

1. The action in Case T-137/16 is dismissed as inadmissible in that it is directed against the European Commission.

2. The Uniwersytet Wrocławski is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings concerning the objection of inadmissibility.

3. The Research Executive Agency (REA) is ordered to bear its own costs incurred in the proceedings concerning the objection of inadmissibility.
3.

Appeal—Pleas in law—Review by the General Court of the assessment of the evidence made by the Civil Service Tribunal—Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted—Plea/Ground of appeal alleging distortion of the clear sense of the evidence—Need to indicate precisely the evidence alleged to have been distorted and show the errors of appraisal which led to that distortion (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 195(2)) (see paras 26, 27)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission

(Case T‑890/16)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Public financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link — Individual aid — Act not open to challenge — Purely confirmatory measure — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Action against a decision merely confirming a previous decision — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 30, 35, 38, 39)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter merely communicating a provisional first analysis as to a possible State aid measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation 2015/1589, Art. 24(2)) (see paras 47-50)

3. State aid — Examination of complaints — Obligations of the Commission — Statement of reasons — Scope (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 296 TFEU) (see paras 68, 69)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 30 September 2016 concerning State aid implemented by Denmark for the financing of the Fehmarn Belt fixed rail-road link.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.