ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application not enabling precise identification of the measure of which annulment is sought — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and (d)) (see para. 29)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority to launch public consultations in English — Preparatory measure not producing independent legal effects — Exclusion (Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1094/2010, Arts 10 and 16(2)) (see paras 31-33, 48, 49)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Decision of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority to launch public consultations in English — Action by a company not mastering that language — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1094/2010, Arts 10(1), third para., 16(2), and 37) (see para. 43)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of an alleged decision of the EIOPA to publish information on its internet site exclusively in English and, specifically, to launch public consultations exclusively in that language and, secondly, of the alleged decision of the Executive Director of the EIOPA, of 16 January 2012, rejecting the MAF’s request for the withdrawal of the first alleged decision and the publication of the abovementioned consultations and all information on the EIOPA’s internet site in all the official languages of the European Union.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Mutuelle des architectes français assurances (MAF) is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 May 2012 —

Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission



(Case T‑134/12 R)

Application for interim measures — Financial assistance — Research and development — Recovery of advance payments made — Application for suspension of operation — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility

1. 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)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the Commission’s measure, notified by letter of 13 January 2012, revoking several subsidies granted to the applicant.

Operative part

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

14 November 2013

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — Application lodged by fax and original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F‑131/12 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application lodged by fax within the period for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s handwritten signature different from that on the original application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, Art. 34(1) and (6))

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an applicant appearing at the bottom of the application lodged by fax is not identical to that appearing on the original of the application lodged subsequently, the application sent by fax cannot be taken into account for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings.

In European Union civil service disputes, Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry by any technical means of communication available to the Tribunal is to be taken into consideration for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings, provided that the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than ten days after the copy of the original was received. Consequently, where it appears that the original of the pleading which is lodged in hard copy at the Registry within ten days of a copy being faxed to the Civil Service Tribunal does not bear the same signature as that appearing on the faxed document, it must be held that what has been received by the Registry of the Tribunal are two separate pleadings, each bearing a signature of its own, even where each of those signatures has been appended by the same person. The strict application of Article 34(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice.

(see paras 14, 19)

See:

C-426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I-8849, para. 43 and the case-law cited therein

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17 and the case-law cited therein
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

12 December 2013

Case T‑504/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the appeal lodged by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

Appeal:

against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2013 in Case F‑44/11 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC and seeking to have that order set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs.

Summary

Judicial proceedings—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings—Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application sent by post—Consequence—Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account for assessing whether the time-limit for bringing proceedings has been met (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

Pursuant to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Registry of the Court by fax or by any other technical means of communication is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with procedural time-limits only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter.

Where the signature of the lawyer representing an appellant at the bottom of the faxed appeal is not the same as the signature on the original appeal lodged subsequently, the date of receipt of the faxed appeal cannot be taken into account for the purpose of assessing whether the time-limit for bringing an appeal has been met. It follows that, in accordance with Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, only the date of receipt of the signed original must be taken into account for the purpose of assessing compliance with that time-limit.

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

29 November 2011, T‑345/11 ENISA v EDPS, not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17; 3 October 2012, T‑360/10 Tecnimed v OHIM — Ecobrands (ZAPPER-CLICK), not published in the ECR, paras 15 to 17, and the case-law cited therein; T‑229/13 P Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, paras 14 and 15
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — Iran Liquefied Natural Gas v Council

(Case T-5/13 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Prohibition of the execution of ongoing trade contracts — Application for suspension of the operation of a measure — Manifest inadmissibility of the plea of illegality on which the application is based — Inadmissibility of the application’

1. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Provisional nature of the measure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24, 25)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Community law — Prima facie admissibility of the main action — Summary examination of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures — Examination of a plea of illegality submitted in the main proceedings (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 26, 27, 29)

3. Plea of illegality — Plea raised at the stage of the reply — Inadmissibility (Art. 277 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 31)

4. Plea of illegality — Scope — Measures the illegality of which may be pleaded — General measure providing the basis of the contested decision — Need for a legal connection between the contested measure and the contested general act — Plea of illegality directed against provisions irrelevant to the resolution of the main dispute and having no direct legal connection with it — Possibility of challenging the general act by means of an annulment action — Manifest inadmissibility (Arts 263 TFEU and 277 TFEU) (see paras 32-36)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation, first, of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures, and, secondly, of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), in so far as that act makes it impossible to perform the contracts concluded by the applicant with partners established in the European Union.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Wepa Lille v Commission

(Case T‑231/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission

(Case T‑397/13 R)

‛Interim measures — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Regulation fixing the refunds at zero — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency — Weighing up of interests’

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 — 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. 104(2)) (see paras 16-18)

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 — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24, 26, 40, 41)

3. EU law — Principles — Vested rights — Limits — Modification of rules governing a common organisation of the market — Modification foreseeable by a prudent and well-advised economic operator — Not applicable (Art. 39 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1234/2007, Arts 162(1), and 164(2)) (see paras 28-32, 37)

4. 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. 104(2)) (see paras 31‑34)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage for the applicant — Interest of the applicant affected — Interests of employees of the applicant company affected — Not included (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 44)

6. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Regulation fixing export refunds in the poultrymeat sector — Competence of the EU judicature to annul the measure, at the earliest, after the expiry of the period for lodging an appeal — Interest of the applicant not capable of protection by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 107(3); Commission Regulations No 360/2013 and No 689/2013, Art. 2) (see paras 47-50)

Re:

APPLICATION for stay of execution of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2014 — Borghezio v Parliament

(Case T‑336/13)

‛Action for annulment — Declaration of the President of the European Parliament, in plenary session, informing the assembly of the exclusion of an MEP from the political group to which he was attached — Act not amenable to review — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measure producing binding legal effects — Declaration of the President of the European Parliament, in plenary session, informing the assembly of the exclusion of an MEP from a political group — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 27-33, 35-38, 42-44)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Parliament, in the form of a declaration of its President on 10 July 2013, in plenary session, according to which the applicant was, since 3 June 2013, sitting as a non-attached MEP, as a result of his exclusion from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom & Democracy’ as from that date.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Mario Borghezio is ordered to bear his own costs, and pay those of the European Parliament, including those incurred in the interim relief proceedings.

Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 2 September 2014 — Borghezio v Parliament

(Case T‑336/13)

‛Action for annulment — Declaration of the President of the European Parliament, in plenary session, informing the assembly of the exclusion of an MEP from the political group to which he was attached — Act not amenable to review — Action manifestly inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measure producing binding legal effects — Declaration of the President of the European Parliament, in plenary session, informing the assembly of the exclusion of an MEP from a political group — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 27-33, 35-38, 42-44)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Parliament, in the form of a declaration of its President on 10 July 2013, in plenary session, according to which the applicant was, since 3 June 2013, sitting as a non-attached MEP, as a result of his exclusion from the political group ‘Europe of Freedom & Democracy’ as from that date.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2014 — Paul Hartmann v Commission

(Case T‑233/13)

‛Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Directive 2013/2 modifying the list of examples of products constituting packaging within the meaning of Directive 94/62 — Obligation on Member States to establish a system of recovery, collection and recycling of waste arising from products constituting packaging — Action brought by an undertaking manufacturing and marketing those products — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU and 288, third para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 94/62, Arts 3, point 1, and 7, and Annex I; Commission Directive 2013/2) (see paras 19, 20, 24-30, 34-36, 48)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

2. Economic and monetary policy — Monetary policy — Coordination of monetary policies — Informal meeting of Member States using the euro within the Eurogroup — Autonomous entity — Imputation of the declarations adopted to the Commission or the European Central Bank — Exclusion (Art. 137 TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 39, 41-45)

3. Economic and monetary policy — Economic policy — Coordination of economic policies — European stability mechanism — Possibility of the Commission and the European Central Bank exercising review powers — Exclusion (Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Arts 1, 2 and 32(2)) (see paras 47, 48)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure — Declarations adopted by the Eurogroup — Not included (Arts 137 TFEU and 263(1) TFEU; Protocol No 14 annexed to the EU and FEU Treaties) (see paras 51-53, 60)

5. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 64)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Tameio Pronoias Prosopikou Trapezis Kyprou is ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).