ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
38

The concept of a ‘regulatory act which … does not entail implementing measures’, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, must be interpreted in the light of that provision’s objective, which consists in preventing an individual from being obliged to infringe the law in order to have access to a court. Where a regulatory act directly affects the legal situation of a natural or legal person without requiring implementing measures, that person could be denied effective judicial protection if he did not have a direct legal remedy before the European Union judicature for the purpose of challenging the legality of the regulatory act. Natural or legal persons in that situation, although directly concerned by the act in question, would be able to obtain a judicial review of that act only after having infringed its provisions, by pleading that those provisions are unlawful in proceedings initiated against them before the national courts (judgment of 19 December 2013, Telefónica v Commission, C‑274/12 P, EU:C:2013:852, paragraph 27).
Procedure—Application initiating proceedings—Formal requirements—Signature by a lawyer, who is a third party in relation to the applicant—Applicant company represented by a lawyer who is also its manager—Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, first, third and fourth paras, and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 73(1))

(see paras 14-17, 19-20)
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 17-20)
Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2016 —

Le Pen v Parliament

(Case T–140/16)

‛Actions for annulment — Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs — Parliamentary assistance allowances — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Complaint — Rejection of the plea of inadmissibility’

European Parliament — Rules on costs and indemnities of MEPs — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament — Complaint — Annulment action brought at the same time before the EU judicature — Lawfulness (Art. 263 TFEU; Decision of the bureau of the Parliament on measures for implementing the regulations for MEPs, Arts 68 and 72) (see paras 26–33, 35–39)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2016 ordering recovery from the applicant of the sum of EUR 320026.23 unduly paid by way of parliamentary assistance and of the related debit note of 4 February 2016.

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 31 May 2017 —

MS v Commission

(Case T‑17/16)

(Action for damages — Decision of the Commission to put an end to a ‘letter of agreement and membership of Team Europe’ — Contractual liability — No arbitration clause — Manifest inadmissibility)

1. Actions for damages—Jurisdiction of the EU judicature—Limits—Character of the liability pleaded—Verification by the court—Action involving assessment of rights and obligations of a contractual nature—No arbitration clause—Jurisdiction of the national courts (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU)

2. Actions for damages—Subject-matter—Compensation for loss allegedly suffered by reason of a Commission decision to terminate the applicant’s collaboration in a local communication network designed to assist Commission representations—Existence of a link between that claim and the interpretation of the letter of agreement and membership of the applicant in the said network—Contractual basis—Inadmissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU)

Re:

APPLICATION under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation from the Commission for the damage caused following its decision of 10 April 2013 by which it decided to put an end to the applicant’s collaboration with the ‘Team Europe’ network of conference speakers.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings—Costs—Taxation—Taxation not capable of taking place until after the decision closing the proceedings

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 170)

(see para. 39)
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 21-24)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 – Pfizer et Pfizer santé familiale v Commission

(Case T-716/16)

(Action for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment–Natural or legal persons–Measures of direct and individual concern to them–Tariff classification rules–Whether applicant individually affected–Criteria (Art. 263, al. 4, TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2016/1140, Art. 1) (see paras 31-33, 59-62)

2. Actions for annulment–Natural or legal persons–Regulatory acts entailing implementing measures–Meaning–Tariff classification rules–Included–Court remedies available against such measures–Existence of internal remedies against the implementation measures (Art. 263, line 4, TFEU; Commission Regulation No 2016/1140) (see paras 36-39, 51, 54)

3. Common Customs Tariff–Classification of goods–Binding tariff information–Scope–Protection of the economic operator against a possible change of the interpretation given by the customs authorities of the legislation in force–Limits–Change to that legislation–Article 12 of the EU customs code (Parliament and Council Regulation No 952/2013, Art. 12) (see para 74)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 June 2018 — Spychalski v Commission

(Case T‑590/16)

(Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013 — Assessment of the main language — Decision not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. 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, Arts 126 and 130) (see paras 16, 19, 20, 45)

2. Actions brought by officials—Action directed against a decision of non-inclusion on a competition reserve list—Possibility of invoking irregularity of the competition notice to challenge non-inclusion—Manifestly incorrect reading of the competition notice by the applicant—Dismissal of the action (see paras 38-45)

3. Actions brought by officials—Subject-matter—Directions to the administration—Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see para. 46)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD 177/10-ECO2013, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), not to include the applicant’s name on the reserve list and, secondly, that the appointing authority be required to add the applicant’s name to the reserve list established on the basis of the open competition in question, subject to the period of validity of the addition being equal to the period of validity of the list.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action on the basis that it is in part manifestly lacking any basis in law and in part on the ground that the General Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine it;
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 November 2017 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T‑907/16)

(Action for annulment — Competition — Mergers — Market for grey cement in Croatia — Decision to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Meaning—Measures producing binding legal effects—Preparatory measures—Not included—Commission decision to initiate in-depth examination of a concentration operation (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 6(1)(c)) (see paras 14-22, 25)

2. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Measures producing binding legal effects—Assessment of those effects by reference to the substance of the measure—Commission decision declaring a notified concentration compatible with the internal market—Decision not in principle adversely affecting the applicant—Obligation of the General Court to examine the possible binding legal effects (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 139/2004, Art. 8(1)) (see paras 23, 24)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(206) 6591 final of 10 October 2016, to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, seeking to assess the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of control of Cemex Hungária Épitöanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
3.

Officials – Reimbursement of expenses – Annual travel expenses and travelling time – Conditions and procedures – Requirement for there to be a link between the grant of those entitlements and the expatriate status – No discrimination against members of staff who are nationals of their country of employment but whose place of origin differs from their place of employment – No obligation on the EU legislature to provide for a special rule for members of staff holding dual nationality (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 20; Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013, Annex VII, Art. 4) (see paras 38-49)
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 16 November 2018 –

OT v Commission

(Case T‑576/16)

(Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Candidature submitted for the post of Director of the EMCDDA — Rejection of the candidature — Lis pendens — Rejection of a request for assistance — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

1. Judicial proceedings — Objection of lis pendens — Same parties, subject-matter and submissions in two actions — Inadmissibility of the second action (see paras 44-46, 86, 87)

2. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 53, 54)

3. Officials — Actions — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for the annulment of the appointment of another official — Applicant not eligible for appointment — Inadmissibility (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 62-69)

4. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91) (see paras 89, 96, 97)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking, on the one hand, annulment (i) of ‘the decision of 26 September 2014 of [the Commission] refusing to accept the [a]pplicant’s candidature for the post of Director of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction’ (EMCDDA), (ii) of the decision of 9 April 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against that decision and the request for assistance, and, (iii) of the decision of 22 October 2015, by which the Commission rejected her complaint against the rejection of her request for assistance, and, on the other hand, compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for grating—Prima facie case—Urgency—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Balancing of all the interests involved—Order of examination and method of verification—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 13-16)
Application for interim measures—Suspension of operation of a measure—Interim measures—Conditions for granting—Prima facie case—Serious and irreparable damage—Cumulative nature—Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief

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

(see paras 13, 14)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Acsen v Parliament and Council

(case T‑381/17)

(Action for annulment — Directive 2011/35/EU — Merger of public limited liability companies — Nullity of the merger — No distinction between absolute nullity and relative nullity of the merger — Time-limit for bringing an action — Delay — Manifest inadmissibility)

Judicial proceedings—Time-limit for instituting proceedings—Claim barred by lapse of time—Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure—Meaning—Impossibility to bring the action earlier due to the failure to comply with the admissibility conditions—Not included

(Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 45, second para. and 53(1))

(see paras 14, 15, 17)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 2011, L 110, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 September 2018 –

Hermann Biederlack v EUIPO (Feeling home)

(Case T‑715/17)

(European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark Feeling home — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any basis in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character –Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

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 18, 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 — Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 20, 21, 23, 33)

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 — Slogan carrying an objective message (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 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 Feeling home (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 28, 32, 34-36)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 June 2017 (Case R 252/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Feeling home as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2018 –

Naftogaz of Ukraine v Commission

(Case T‑196/17)

(Action for annulment — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Commission Decision on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third-party access and tariff regulation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Whether directly concerned—Criteria—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Decision requiring the adoption of national implementing measures—Not directly concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 26-28)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision—Conditions—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Action by a company which is an operator of gas transmission in a third country and a gas purchaser—Not individually concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 32-34, 39-41)

3. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ under Article 263(4) of the TFEU—Any act of general scope other than legislative acts—Commission decision amending the conditions for exemption from the EU requirements of the rules governing operation of a pipeline—Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2009/73, Art. 36) (see paras 44-46)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on the review of the conditions for exemption of the OPAL pipeline, granted under Directive 2003/55/EC, from the rules on third-party access and tariff regulation.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene.

3. NJSC Naftogaz of Ukraine shall bear its own costs and the costs of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2018 –

eSlovensko v Commission

(Case T‑664/17)

(Action for annulment — Subsidies — Finding of irregularities — Commission decision imposing an administrative penalty — Exclusion from procurement procedures and from the award of grants financed by the general budget of the European Union for a period of two years — Registration in the early detection and exclusion system database — Challenge — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 266 TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Procedure — 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 (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 para. 29)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 21 June 2017, imposing the administrative penalty of exclusion of the applicant from procurement and grant award procedures financed from the general budget of the European Union for a period of 24 months and consequently registering it in the early detection and exclusion system database provided for in Article 108(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 –

Makhlouf v Council

(Case T‑506/17)

(Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Hypothetical measures not yet adopted — Not included (see para. 25)

2. Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime — Rights of defence — Notification of inculpatory evidence — Subsequent decision maintaining the name of the applicant on the list of persons covered by those measures — Prior communication beforehand of new reasoning arising from a context known to the person concerned — No explicit statement of reasons in relation to that new reasoning — Infringement of the right to be heard — None (Council Decisions 2013/255/CFSP, (CFSP)2016/850 and (CFSP)2017/917) (see paras 32-34)

3. European Union — Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions — Restrictive measures against Syria — Ambit of the review (see para. 45)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017, amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017 L 139, p. 62), and its subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2019 –

Schokker v AESA

(Case T‑817/17)

(Civil service — Contract staff — AESA — Recruitment — Selection procedure — Inclusion of the applicant on the reserve list — Withdrawal of the offer of employment made to the applicant — Liability — No unlawful conduct by the EASA — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. 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 21, 22)

2. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Cumulative conditions (Article 340, second para. TFEU) (see paras 30, 31)

3. Actions brought by officials — Acts adversely affecting an official — Meaning — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Preparatory act — Not included (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 35-39)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFUE for compensation for damage which the applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the blameworthy conduct of the EASA during the selection procedure for the recruitment of a member of the contract staff.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.