ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October 2016 —

Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission

(Case T‑564/15)

‛Actions for annulment — Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Action against the author of the contested measure — Exceptions — Measures adopted under delegated powers imputable to the delegating institution — Decision of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) rejecting a proposal submitted in response to a call for proposals launched under the Connecting Europe Facility — Competence of INEA to adopt the said decision — Action directed against the Commission — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1316/2013, Art. 18; Council Regulation No 58/2003, Art. 6) (see paras 19-24)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Email from INEA informing the addressee of the non-selection of its proposal for financial assistance in the context of a draft list of the proposals accepted — Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1316/2013, Art. 18) (see paras 29, 30, 34, 36)

3. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged — Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings — Adaptation of initial forms of order sought and pleas in law — Possibility subject to the admissibility of the initial application — Initial application concerning a provisional measure — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 86(1)) (see paras 39, 40)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the email of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) of 17 July 2015, relating to the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the call for proposals launched under the Connecting Europe Facility on the basis of the Multi-Annual Work Programme adopted in 2014 pursuant to Commission Implementing Decision C(2014) 1921 final of 26 March 2014 establishing the 2014 Multi-Annual Work Programme for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 June 2018 –

Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T‑147/15)

(Actions for annulment — European Union’s own resources — Financial responsibility of the Member States — Application to be exempted from making available own resources — Letter from the Commission — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letter informally calling on Member State to place traditional own resources at the disposal of the EU budget — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1150/2000; Council Decision 2007/436) (see paras 31, 36, 48-50, 53, 62, 64)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 32, 33, 60, 61)

3. Own resources of the European Union — Establishment and making available by the Member States — Responsibility of the Member States — Scope (Council Regulation No 1150/2000, Arts 2(1), 9(1) and 17(1) and (2); Council Decision 2007/436, Arts 2(1)(a) and 8(1)) (see paras 37, 38, 41-44)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Whether that condition can be set aside by invoking the right to effective judicial protection — None (Art. 6(1), third para. TEU; Art. 263, fourth para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7)) (see para. 81)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision allegedly made by the director of the directorate ‘Own resources and financial programming’ of the Directorate-General for Budget of the Commission contained in the letter with reference Ares (2015) 217973 of 20 January 2015 by which the latter dismissed the application to be exempted from making available own resources in an amount of CZK 53976340 submitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1), and requested the Czech authorities to take the necessary measures to credit the Commission’s account with the amount of CZK 53976340, at the latest on the first working day following the nineteenth day of the second month following the dispatch of the letter concerned, at the risk of having to pay default interest pursuant to Article 11 of that regulation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the Slovak Republic’s application to intervene.

3. The Czech Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
34

It therefore cannot be interpreted as protecting that applicant for authorisation from references to the report in question made by EFSA in the context of the approval, by the Commission, of a basic substance. As is stated in recital 18 of Regulation No 1107/2009, ‘substances which are not predominantly used as plant protection products may be of value for plant protection, [even though] the economic interest of applying for approval may be limited’. Thus, a substance is approved as a basic substance not for the benefit of individual applicants, but for the benefit of all users, and such approval therefore does not fall within the scope of the protection afforded by Article 59(1) of Regulation No 1107/2009. Moreover, it should also be noted, as is apparent from Article 28(2)(a) of that regulation, that the approval of a substance as a basic substance permits only the ‘use’ of that substance for plant protection purposes, and not the placing of that substance on the market as a plant protection product, a fact which confirms an individual applicant’s lack of economic interest in such an approval.
2

In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the parties having been given an opportunity to submit their written observations pursuant to Article 164(3) of those rules, it is necessary to rectify, in the version in the language of the case, obvious inaccuracies found in paragraph 49 of that judgment.
34

When it affirmed the criterion that legal advice must be provided ‘in full independence’ in defining the personal scope of the protection of confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients (judgment of 18 May 1982, AM & S Europe v Commission, 155/79, EU:C:1982:157, paragraph 24), the Court of Justice identified such advice as that provided by a lawyer who is, structurally, hierarchically and functionally, a third party in relation to the undertaking receiving that advice (judgment of 17 September 2007, Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v Commission, T‑125/03 and T‑253/03, EU:T:2007:287, paragraph 168), an identification which is also relevant in the context of representation before the Courts of the European Union (see, to that effect, order of 9 November 2011, Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE), T‑243/11, not published, EU:T:2011:649, paragraph 16). Furthermore, it has been held that the lawyer of a party for the purposes of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or a non-privileged party, must not have any personal connection to the case in question or any relationship of dependence with his client of such a nature as to place him at risk of not being able to fulfil his vital role of representative of the law in the most appropriate manner (see, to that effect, orders of 30 October 2008, Ortega Serrano v Commission, F‑48/08, EU:F:2008:131, not published, paragraph 35). In particular, the Court has held that the financial or structural relationships that the representative has with his client cannot be such as to give rise to confusion between the client’s own interests and the personal interests of its representative (order of 6 September 2011, ClientEarth v Council, T‑452/10, not published, EU:T:2011:420, paragraph 20).
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 April 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T‑41/16 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin — ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Rejection of opposition — 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 17-19)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure — Risk of fundamental rights being undermined — Not sufficient to constitute serious and irreparable damage — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(3)) (see paras 28-35)

Re:

APPLICATION on the basis of Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and seeking the grant of interim measures relating to the procedure for registration of the cheese referred to as ‘halloumi/hellim’ as a protected designation of origin under 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).

Operative part

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

The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it concerns: (1) the application for annulment of the notification and measures for implementation of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 1 July 2016, concerning the recovery from Mr Bruno Gollnisch of a sum of EUR 275984.23, contained in the letter from the Director General of the Directorate General for Finance of the Parliament of 6 July 2016; (2) the claim for the award of the sum of EUR 40000 by way of compensation for non-material damage; (3) the claim for the award of the sum of EU 24500 in respect of costs incurred; and (4) the claim for suspension of operation of the decision referred to above.
The lodging of an application initiating proceedings by means of the e-Curia application, using the user identification and password of the applicant’s agent or lawyer constitutes signature in accordance with Article 3 of the e-Curia Decision.

Status as the applicant’s representative is evidenced by the fact that the applicant has submitted an authorisation to act in favour of the lawyer or agent concerned. The fact that that authorisation is not lodged together with the application does not affect that finding or result in the inadmissibility of the application, since such an omission at the time of lodging an application can be put in order, and has been put in order, by the applicant within the time limit prescribed by Article 78(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Moreover, use of an e-Curia account not only constitutes signature but, unlike a mere handwritten signature, also automatically provides information regarding the identity, the professional status and address of the signatory representing the applicant.

In any event, the mere lack of reference to the address of the lawyer concerned or to the fact that the latter is the representative of the applicant in the body of the application is not, in itself, such as to render inadmissible an application duly signed by a lawyer of the Union authorised by the applicant, whether that signature is handwritten or electronic by means of e-Curia, and lodged within the time limit prescribed in Article 263(6) TFEU.

(see paras 25, 28-30)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 26 June 2017 —

L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SHAPE)

(Case T‑180/16)

(EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SHAPE — 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 SHAPE 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 2907/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 April 2017 —

Dreimane v Commission

(Case T‑618/16)

(Action for annulment and compensation — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Time-limits—Mandatory (Staff Regulations, Art. 90) (see para. 27)

2. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Date of introduction—Receipt by the administration (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) (see para. 28)

3. Actions brought by officials—Acts adversely affecting an official—Concept—Decision recognising pensionable years adopted following the transfer of capital representing pension rights acquired before entry into EU service—Included (Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2)) (see paras 31, 32)

4. Officials—Decision adversely affecting an official—Obligation to state reasons—Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 25, second para.) (see para. 36)

Re:

ACTION under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission decision fixing the number of additional pensionable years to be taken into account in the pension scheme of the EU institutions following the applicant’s request to transfer pension rights acquired before she entered the service of the European Union, and, second, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s failure to act within a reasonable period in the processing of that transfer request.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the application to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union.
Case T‑883/16 R

Republic of Poland

v

European Commission

(Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from EU operating requirements — Commission decision amending the exemption from EU requirements — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)

Summary — Order of the President of the General Court, 21 July 2017

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Commission decision amending the conditions for derogation from EU rules for the operation of a gas pipeline — No proof that situations arising under the legal regime made possible by that decision irreversible — No urgency

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Damage capable of occurring only after the expiry of several contracts — Duration of those contracts exceeding the average duration of proceedings before the General Court — No urgency

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

See the text of the decision. (see paras 22-25)

The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in the light of the need for an interlocutory order in order to avoid serious and irreparable damage to the party seeking the interim relief before judgment is delivered on the principal action for annulment. It is for that party to adduce sound evidence that it cannot wait for the outcome of the main proceedings if it is not to suffer personally harm of that kind. The applicant fails to adduce such sound evidence where the harm alleged cannot occur before the expiry of several contracts, the duration of which exceeds the estimated duration of the procedure before the General Court and which could be renewed. Failure to perform the relevant contractual obligations would give rise to specific legal remedies which it would be for the applicant to implement if necessary. In the case of infringement of the contractual obligations, it would, moreover, be possible for the applicant to have recourse to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure. (see paras 34, 36, 37)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 39)
Order of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 3 July 2017 —

De Nicola v EIB

(Case T‑666/16 P)

(Appeal — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career development report — 2013 staff report — Application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee and of the decision not to promote the applicant — Psychological harassment — Claim for damages)

1. Actions brought by officials—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Limits—Application of national law—Exclusion (Art. 270 TFEU) (see para. 14)

2. Officials—Staff of the European Investment Bank—Reports procedure—Staff report—Challenge before the Appeals Committee of the EIB—Ambit of the review (Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 22) (see para. 25)

3. Actions brought by officials—Staff of the European Investment Bank—Action directed against a decision of the Appeals Committee concerning appraisal—Judicial review—Scope (Staff Regulations, Art. 91; Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank, Art. 22) (see para. 26)

Re:

APPEAL brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, De Nicola v EIB (F‑100/15, EU:F:2016:167), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part

1. The appeal is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 February 2017 — Pipiliagkas v Commission

(Case T‑598/16)

(Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Assignment — Transfer in the interest of the service — Reassignment of the applicant — Implementation of a judgment — Pre-litigation procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials—Prior administrative complaint—Action brought before expiry of the period for replying to the complaint—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 34-37)

2. Officials—Principles—Rights of defence—Obligation to hear the person concerned before adopting a measure adversely affecting him—Scope (see para. 43)

3. Actions brought by officials—Application for damages linked to an application for annulment—Claim for compensation for damage arising from absence or lateness of measures implementing an annulment judgment formulated in the complaint against the decision not to adopt implementing measures—Admissibility (Art. 266 TFEU; Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91) (see para. 46)

4. Actions brought by officials—Subject-matter—Directions to the administration—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations, Art. 91) (see para. 48)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Articles 266 TFEU and 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision not to adopt the measures for compliance with the judgment of 15 April 2015, Pipiliagkas v Commission (F‑96/13, EU:F:2015:29), and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 22 December 2015 reassigning the applicant from the European Union delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
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 seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution—Application seeking compensation in the abstract with no explanation in that regard—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d))

(see paras 23-25, 28)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Ninth Chamber) of 17 October 2017 — Andreassons Åkeri and Others v Commission

(Case T‑746/16)

(Action for annulment — Social security — Commission decision to close an EU Pilot procedure — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Refusal of the Commission to bring infringement proceedings — Act not open to challenge — Lack of direct concern — Manifest inadmissibility — Application seeking the issue of an injunction — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Commission's refusal to bring infringement proceedings—Not included (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 12-18)

2. Actions for annulment—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution—Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 19-21)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 10 August 2016 concerning the outcome of EU Pilot Procedure 7504/15/EMPL.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.