ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

10 February 2004

Case T-394/03 R

Flavia Angeletti

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Procedure for interim relief – Urgency – None)

Full text in French II - 0000

Application: for suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of 17 October 2003, as corrected on 27 October 2003.

Held: The application for interim relief is dismissed. The costs are reserved.

Summary

1. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Interim measures – Suspension of operation – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Strictly financial damage

(Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

1. Under Article 104(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance an application for interim measures must state the circumstances giving rise to urgency and the pleas of fact and law establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for. Those conditions are cumulative, so that an application to suspend the operation of a measure must be dismissed where one of them is absent.

(see para. 23)

See: T-211/98 R Willeme v Commission [1999] ECR-SC I-A-15 and II-57, para. 18

2. The urgency of an application for interim measures must be assessed in relation to the need for an interim order in order to prevent serious and irreparable damage to the party requesting the interim measure. It is for the party requesting suspension of the operation of the contested decision to adduce proof that he cannot await the outcome of the main proceedings without suffering such damage.

Purely financial damage cannot as a matter of principle be regarded as irreparable or even difficult to repair, because financial compensation can be made for it subsequently.

However, it is for the judge hearing the application for interim measures to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, whether the immediate execution of the decision giving rise to the application for suspension of operation may cause the applicant grave and imminent damage that even the annulment of the decision at the close of the main proceedings would be unable to repair.

In order to satisfy the burden of proof required to demonstrate the urgency of obtaining the suspension of operation applied for, it is not sufficient to claim that the operation of the contested measure would produce serious and irreparable damage. It must also be shown that the effects of the measure actually constitute serious and irreparable damage. To that end the information put forward must be substantiated by evidence and must allow the judge hearing the application for interim measures to obtain an accurate picture of the applicant’s situation.

(see paras 26-27, 29, 31)

See: T-549/93 R D v Commission [1993] ECR II-1347, para. 45; Willeme v Commission, paras 36 and 37; T-373/00 R Tralli v ECB [2001] ECR-SC I-A-19 and II-83, para. 26
Case T-325/03

E-Sim Ltd

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Removal from the Register)

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance, 6 May 2004

Summary of the Order

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against the rejection of a trade mark application following the lodging of opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Admissibility at any time – Discontinuance by the applicant – Removal from the Register

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 99; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(5))

In opposition proceedings brought against the registration of a Community trade mark, opposition may be withdrawn at any time. Accordingly, if opposition is withdrawn before the refusal of the application for registration under Article 43(5) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark has become final, the decision of the Opposition Division and that of the Board of Appeal ruling on the opposition become redundant and cannot be an impediment to the registration of the trade mark.

If, in such circumstances, the applicant informs the Court in writing that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings, the President is to order the case to be removed from the Register under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure.

(see paras 3-4)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Applicant represented by a person who has a legal qualification but is not a lawyer – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)

Summary

It is clear from the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, that two cumulative conditions must be satisfied in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions before the Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer and must be authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure to comply with them will result in the action being inadmissible.

An application lodged by a non-privileged party and signed by a person holding a legal qualification who, although able to represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of a Member State, does not satisfy all of the conditions laid down by the relevant national legislation for recognition as a lawyer and is accordingly not a lawyer for the purposes of Article 19 of the Statute is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 7, 9-10)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation capable of jeopardising the existence of the applicant company or of irremediably altering its market position

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Non-financial damage – Damage to the reputation of an undertaking caused by the non-award of a public contract – Not included

(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2))

Summary

1. In the context of interim proceedings, financial loss cannot in principle be regarded as irreparable, or even as being hard to repair, where it can be the subject of future financial compensation and thus consitutes a loss which is economically capable of being compensated for through the means of redress laid down under the Treaty, in particular Article 288 EC. It would be otherwise if, were the interim measures sought not granted, the applicant would find itself in a situation which could jeopardise its very existence or irremediably alter its position in the market.

(see paras 43, 45-46)

2. A decision not to award a public contract does not necessarily result in irreparable damage to the reputation and credibility of unsuccessful tenderers. Participation in a public tender procedure, by nature highly competitive, necessarily involves risks for all the participants, and the elimination of a tenderer under the rules on tenders is not, in itself, in any way damaging. Similarly, the fact that an undertaking is unsuccessful in renewing a contract for a set period in a new tender procedure arises from the periodic nature of invitations to tender in the public procurement sector and does not harm its credibility and reputation.

(see paras 53-54)
Staff case summary



Staff case summary

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An action brought by an official seeking annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure for a given year because that list does not contain the applicant’s name, and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the promotion points awarded to him, is manifestly inadmissible where the applicant has not provided in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question, such as, in particular, his grade, seniority in grade, the number of promotion points that he received in total and in the various categories, and the promotion threshold for the grade in question, and has therefore not shown why he has a personal interest in bringing the action.

Furthermore, where the applicant’s written submissions are expressed in general, abstract terms, contesting in particular the award of certain categories of promotion points without stating to what extent that award adversely affects his own interests, without describing his individual case and without establishing a link between the grievances he invokes and his personal situation, those grievances do not concern his personal legal situation, but the general situation of the staff of his institution, and they cannot form the basis for the admissibility of the action, since an official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally .

(see paras 28-32, 36)

See: 85/82 Schloh v Council [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14; T‑163/89 Sebastiani v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑715, para. 25
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark

–

Appeals procedure

–

Time-limit and form of appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 49) (see paras 32-33, 57

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 July 2004 (Case R 614/2003-1), concerning proceedings for invalidity of the Community figurative mark HENSOTHERM.

Information relating to the case

>lt>9

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs as well as those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

3. Orders the intervener to pay its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 111-113, 138-140

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking an order against all the defendants jointly to repay the amounts paid by the Community in accordance with six contracts concluded in the framework of the Thermie programme and one contract concluded in the framework of the Altener II programme.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it relates to Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare BVBA, Società politecnica italiana recherche e progetti Srl, RPA Spa, Carmen eV, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service SA, Managium SPRL and Aris Hellas EPE;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs with regard to the action brought against Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service, Managium and Aris Hellas, and pay the costs of Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service and Managium;

3. Orders Aris Hellas to bear its own costs.
Case T-445/04

Energy Technologies ET SA

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark – Representation by a lawyer – Manifest inadmissibility)

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), 28 February 2005

Summary of the Order

Procedure – Originating application – Formal requirements – Signature by a lawyer – Applicant represented by a person who has a legal qualification but is not a lawyer – Inadmissible

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 19, fourth para.)

It is clear from the fourth paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to proceedings before the Court of First Instance by virtue of Article 53 of that Statute, that two cumulative conditions must be satisfied in order for a person to be able validly to represent parties other than Member States and Community institutions before the Community Courts: that person must be a lawyer and must be authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Those requirements are essential formal rules and failure to comply with them will result in the action being inadmissible.

An application lodged by a non-privileged party and signed by a person holding a legal qualification who, although able to represent parties in certain actions before the courts and tribunals of a Member State, does not satisfy all of the conditions laid down by the relevant national legislation for recognition as a lawyer and is accordingly not a lawyer for the purposes of Article 19 of the Statute is therefore inadmissible.

(see paras 7, 9-10)
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2006 − Commission v TRENDS and Others

(Case T-449/04)

Arbitration clause – Plea of inadmissibility – Action against the members of a company

1. Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 30, 32-33)

2. Procedure – More than one defendant (see para. 41)

Re:

APPLICATION for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the financial contribution overpaid by the European Community in respect of two contracts concluded in connection with the implementation of the Community Programme ‘Telemetric systems in the area of transport’

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it is brought against Mr Tillis, Mr Kontaratos, Mr Argyrakos, Mr Petrakis and Ms Koutroumpa;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 January 2008 – Commission v Lior and Others

(Case T-245/04)

Arbitration clause – Jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance – Action against a European Economic Interest Grouping and its members and former members – Partial jurisdiction

Procedure – Referral to the Court of First Instance under an arbitration clause (Arts 238 EC and 240 EC) (see paras 111-113, 138-140)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 238 EC seeking an order against all the defendants jointly to repay the amounts paid by the Community in accordance with six contracts concluded in the framework of the Thermie programme and one contract concluded in the framework of the Altener II programme.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it relates to Deira SA, Eutec Srl, Mindshare BVBA, Società politecnica italiana recherche e progetti Srl, RPA Spa, Carmen eV, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport SA, Europe Information Service SA, Managium SPRL and Aris Hellas EPE;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs with regard to the action brought against Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service, Managium and Aris Hellas, and pay the costs of Deira, Eutec, Mindshare, Società politecnica italiana recerche e progetti, RPA, Carmen, University College Dublin – Energy Research Group, Beneport, Europe Information Service and Managium;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

26 April 2007

Case T-415/04

Tebaldi and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil Service – Officials – Promotion – 2003 promotion procedure – Refusal of promotion – Award of promotion points – Manifestly inadmissible)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the list of officials promoted to a higher grade in the 2003 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the names of the applicants, and of the preparatory measures for that decision and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the decision awarding promotion points in the 2003 promotion procedure.

Held: The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. Each party is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Interest in bringing proceedings

(Staff Regulations, Arts 90 and 91)

An action brought by an official seeking annulment of the list of officials promoted to the higher grade in a promotion procedure for a given year because that list does not contain the applicant’s name, and, by way of an ancillary measure, annulment of the promotion points awarded to him, is manifestly inadmissible where the applicant has not provided in his written submissions any specific information about his personal situation with regard to the promotion year in question, such as, in particular, his grade, seniority in grade, the number of promotion points that he received in total and in the various categories, and the promotion threshold for the grade in question, and has therefore not shown why he has a personal interest in bringing the action.

Furthermore, where the applicant’s written submissions are expressed in general, abstract terms, contesting in particular the award of certain categories of promotion points without stating to what extent that award adversely affects his own interests, without describing his individual case and without establishing a link between the grievances he invokes and his personal situation, those grievances do not concern his personal legal situation, but the general situation of the staff of his institution, and they cannot form the basis for the admissibility of the action, since an official is not entitled to act in the interests of the law or of the institutions and may put forward, in support of an action for the annulment of a measure, only such claims as relate to him personally .

(see paras 28-32, 36)

See: 85/82 Schloh v Council [1983] ECR 2105, para. 14; T‑163/89 Sebastiani v Parliament [1991] ECR II‑715, para. 25
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Action truly relating to a contractual dispute (Arts 230 EC and 249 EC) (see para. 33)

2. Procedure – Applications initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 58, 61)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought under Articles 230 EC and 238 EC relating to the payment claimed by the applicant in connection with the performance of the two contracts IPS-1999-00016 and IPS-1999-00022, concluded under the research and technological development programme entitled ‘Promotion of innovation and encouragement of SME participation’.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Conditions governing admissibility

–

Admissibility of main application

–

Not relevant

–

Limits (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), second para.) (see para. 46

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the suspension of a decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 20 October 2005 and, secondly, for an order for interim measures concerning the administrative procedure conducted before the Commission for the inclusion of procymidone in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Natural or legal persons

–

Measures of direct and individual concern to them (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Council Regulations Nos 2269/2004 and 2270/2004) (see paras 39-47

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1) and, second, Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and 2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated to Estonia.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC and 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 27, 29-30, 32)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Definition – Measures producing binding legal effects (Arts 226 EC and 230 EC) (see para. 35)

3. Actions for annulment – Right of the Commission and of the Member States to bring judicial proceedings (Arts 226 EC and 227 EC) (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20 April 2005 not to initiate proceedings against the Greek Republic for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations and an application that a ruling be given on the substance.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – ‘Prima facie case’ – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Art. 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Dismissal of application (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 109) (see paras 32-34)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 39)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for re-examination of the applicant’s first application for interim measures, dismissed by order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2007 in Case T‑345/05 R V v Parliament , not published in the ECR.

Operative part

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.