ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 —

ANKO v Commission

(Case T‑64/13)

‛Arbitration clause — Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Contract concerning the Doc@Hand project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — To be considered of the Court’s own motion — Requirement that an interest in bringing proceedings subsist until the delivery of the court decision (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 113 and 114(3) and (4)) (see para. 30)

2. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the Court defined exclusively by Article 272 TFEU and the arbitration clause — Application of national provisions on jurisdiction and admissibility — Exclusion (Art. 272 TFEU) (see para. 31)

3. Judicial proceedings — Referral to the General Court under an arbitration clause — Contracts concluded under a specific research, technological development and demonstration programme — Unilateral termination by the Commission based on non-performance of contractual obligations — Request for repayment of advances — Action brought by the beneficiary against the Commission’s letter announcing its intention to issue a debit note — Conditions for payment and due date not fixed — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Application inadmissible (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1605/2002, Art. 71(2); Commission Regulation No 2342/2002, Arts 78 and 79) (see paras 38, 39, 46-51, 53)

Re:

ACTION brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Doc@Hand project, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 13 May 2015 —

Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)

(Case T‑47/13 DEP)

‛Procedure — Taxation of costs — Manifest inadmissibility’

Judicial proceedings — Costs — Dispute over recoverable costs (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 92(1)) (see paras 11-12)

Re:

Application for taxation of costs following the judgment of 29 January 2014, Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück) (T‑47/13, EU:T:2014:37).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 20 January 2015 — NICO v Council

(Case T‑6/13)

‛Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran — Freezing of funds — Time-limit in which to bring proceedings — Starting point — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure entailing restrictive measures against a person or body — Measure published and notified to the addressees — Date of notification of the measure — Notification to the person concerned by means of a publication in the Official Journal of the European Union — Admissibility (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para, TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102; Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP, Art. 2; Council Regulation No 945/2012, Art. 1) (see paras 14, 15, 24-34, 42)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see para. 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment in part 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 the applicant’s name is included in the list of persons and entities to whom those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
25

Thirdly, the Court shares the Commission’s view that the hypothetical nature of the explanations given in the letter of 2 September 2013 was especially clear in view of the fact that the Commission would not, in any event, have been in a position to adopt a decision producing legal effects vis-à-vis the applicant concerning the extension of the market exclusivity of the medicinal product Xagrid under Article 37 of Regulation No 1901/2006. It should be noted in that connection that that provision makes the grant of the reward of the two-year extension of the market exclusivity of an orphan medicinal product contingent on the requirement, inter alia, that studies are carried out in compliance with an EMA-approved paediatric investigation plan and that the results of all such studies are submitted in the summary of the characteristics of the medicinal product. However, it is apparent from the explanations given by the applicant in the letter of 1 August 2013 and also from the application that a request for the modification of the paediatric investigation plan for the medicinal product Xagrid was still being considered by the EMA and, what is more, that the compliance check in respect of the plan for Xagrid had not yet been completed. In those circumstances, even if the applicant had wanted the Commission to give a decision on the application of Article 37 of Regulation No 1901/2006 to the specific case of the medicinal product Xagrid, that institution could not have adopted any decision in that regard as the applicant had not even complied beforehand with the requirement laid down in that provision.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 para. 26)

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 or irremediably alter its position in the market — Obligation to provide concrete and precise information on the economic and financial position of the applicant company (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 41-45)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Suspension of operation of a decision on restrictive measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Need to remedy rapidly a case of flagrant and very serious illegality — Included — Discretion of the Council in the general and abstract definition of the legal criteria and rules for adopting restrictive measures — Limited judicial review (Art. 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 971/2013; Council Decision 2013/497) (see paras 50-56)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Decision to freeze funds in the context of restrictive measures against Iran — 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 264(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 107(3); Council Regulation No 1154/2013; Council Decision 2013/661) (see paras 59, 62-66)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), in so far as the names of the applicants were included on the list of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 November 2014 —

Léon Van Parys v Commission

(Case T‑171/14)

‛Action for annulment — Customs union — Commission letter informing of continued suspension of time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties — Application for a ruling — Lack of competence of the General Court — No interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Competence of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 15)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Preparatory measures — Not included — Commission letter informing of continued suspension of time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27, 28)

3. Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Obligation to implement — Scope — Decision not necessarily having to repeat the same grounds as those appearing in the annulled measure (Art. 266 TFEU) (see paras 32-34)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the letter of the European Commission of 24 January 2014 informing the applicant about the continuation of the suspension of the time-limit for dealing with an application for remission of customs duties under Article 907 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and, secondly, application for a ruling that Article 909 of Regulation No 2454/93 had effect with regard to the applicant after the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Firma Van Parys v Commission (T‑324/10, ECR, EU:T:2013:136).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 January 2015 — UNIC v Commission

(Case T‑338/14)

‛Action for annulment — Joint actions to promote sustainable development economically, socially and environmentally in developing countries — Generalised tariff preferences granted to treated and partly treated leather originating from India, Pakistan and Ethiopia — Rejection of the application for a temporary withdrawal of the benefit of generalised preferences — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — No obligation on the General Court to commence the oral procedure before ruling on an objection of inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 114) (see paras 13, 14)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — Commission letter refusing a request to open the procedure for temporary withdrawal of the generalised preferential regimes — Not included — Addressee’s action inadmissible (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 978/12; Council Regulation No 2820/98) (see paras 19, 27, 28, 29)

3. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — System of Generalised Tariff Preferences for developing countries — Temporary withdrawal of the benefit of the system of generalised tariff preferences — Right of a legal person to request opening of the procedures for temporary withdrawal — Exclusion — Right of a legal person to request opening of an investigation with a view to imposing safeguard and surveillance measures — Inclusion (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 978/12, Chapter V, Art. 19(1) and (2), and Chapter VI, Art. 24(1); Commission Regulation No 1083/2013, Art. 1) (see paras 23, 24, 38)

4. Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — System of Generalised Tariff Preferences for developing countries — Temporary withdrawal of the benefit of the system of generalised tariff preferences — Information coming from third parties after opening of the procedure by the Commission — Admissibility (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 978/12; Council Regulation No 2820/98; Commission Regulation No 1083/2013, Art. 1(2)) (see paras 26, 35-37)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 19 March 2014 addressed to the applicant and rejecting its request for initiation of a temporary withdrawal procedure in respect of the generalised preferential arrangements granted to the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia with regard to raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention made by the Republic of Italy.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Absolute bar to proceeding — Non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure — To be considered of the Court’s own motion (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104) (see paras 6, 7)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Cumulative nature (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(2)) (see para. 8)

3. Application 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 documents — Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), and 104(3)) (see paras 9, 10)

4. 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 or irremediably alter its position in the market — Obligation to provide concrete and precise information on the economic and financial position of the applicant company (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13, 14, 16)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFUE, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 17)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the Research Executive Agency (REA) decision ARES (2014) 2461172 of 24 July 2014 excluding the applicant from participation in the ZONeSEC and Inachus projects.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Representation of a blue sphere)

(Case T‑626/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark representing a blue sphere — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 13)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Assessment of distinctive character — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 14-16)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative representing a blue sphere (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 20)

4. Community trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — OHIM’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 25)

5. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Assessment of the registrability of a sign — EU rules only taken into account — Earlier registration of the mark in certain Member States or third countries — Decisions not binding EU bodies (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2014 (Case R 169/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a blue sphere as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (NEXTCARD)

(Case T‑233/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark NEXTCARD — Partial refusal of registration by the examiner — Obligation to state reasons — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions — Article 75, first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 — Scope identical to that of Article 296 TFEU (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence) (see para. 15)

2. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Examination of the grounds for refusal having regard to each of the products or services covered by the application for registration — Obligation to state the reasons for refusing to register — Scope (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75) (see paras 16, 17)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2014 (Case R 1807/2013‑5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign NEXTCARD as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification – Defects in notification — Possibility of OHIM establishing the legal effects of regular notification — Formal requirements — Absence (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 68) (see paras 18-20)

2. Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Notification — Notification by fax — Calculation of time-limits — Date of receipt (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 61(2), 65(1), and 70(2)) (see paras 23, 26)

3. Procedure — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure — Concept composed of objective and subjective elements — Limits (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.) (see paras 34, 35)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2013 (Case R 1285/2013-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a peace symbol.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Monster Energy Company is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act — Definition of position within the meaning of Article 265, second paragraph, TFEU, before commencement of proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 20)

2. Actions for failure to act — Institution called upon to act — Compulsory — Action brought before expiry of the time-limit for the institution’s reply — Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

3. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Concept — Measure not considered satisfactory — Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 25)

4. Actions for failure to act — Natural or legal persons — 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 — None — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see paras 30-33)

5. Approximation of laws — Nutritional and health claims concerning foodstuffs — Regulation No 1924/2006 — Conditions for using the said claims — Application of transitional measures for claims in the course of evaluation at the time of the entry into force of Regulation No 1924/2006 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1924/2006, Arts 13(1), and 28(5) and (6)) (see paras 35-38)

6. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Concept (see para. 51)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully refrained from ordering the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to evaluate the health claims relating to botanical substances as a condition prior to the adoption of the definitive list of authorised health claims in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Bionorica SE is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 December 2015 —

Italy v Commission

(Case T‑673/14)

‛Action for annulment — State aid — Transport — Establishment of Airport Handling SpA — Decision to open the formal examination procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU — Measure not open to challenge — Aid measures completely implemented by the date on which the action was brought — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Acts intended to have legal effects — Concept — Conditions (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 18)

2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 19, 44)

3. Judicial proceedings — Admissibility of actions — Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged (see para. 21)

4. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Decision of the Commission to open a formal investigation procedure into a State measure in the course of implementation accompanied by a provisional classification as new aid — Included (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 22-28, 43)

5. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure into a State measure no longer being implemented — Not included (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 11(2), and 14(1)) (see paras 29-34, 46)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4537 final of 9 July 2014 to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU concerning the establishment of the company Airport Handling (State Aid SA.21420 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2013/PN)).

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.