ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 6 May 2014 — Unión de Almacenistas de Hierros de España v Commission

(Case T‑419/13)

‛Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to two Spanish competition proceedings — Implied refusal of access — Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Silence or inaction of an institution — Not included — Limits — Failure to reply to a confirmatory application within the prescribed time limit (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 8(2) and (3)) (see paras 21, 24)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action brought against an implied decision on the part of the Commission to refuse access to documents — Decision replaced during the proceedings with an express decision — No further interest in bringing an action (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 8(3)) (see paras 28, 29, 32)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to correspondence exchanged between the Commission and the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC, Spanish national competition authority) with regard to two national proceedings initiated by the CNC.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

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

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and those of Unión de Almacenistas of Hierros de España.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

13 March 2014

Case T‑652/13 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appeal submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Lawyer’s signature on the fax different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Original lodged out of time — Appeal out of time — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 in Case F‑31/13 Marcuccio v Commission [2013] ECR-SC, seeking to have that order set aside.

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

Summary

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Application submitted by fax within the prescribed period — Handwritten signature of the lawyer different from that on the original of the application sent by post — Consequence — Date of receipt of the fax not taken into account in order to determine compliance with the period prescribed for bringing an appeal

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(6))

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

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

(see paras 6, 8-9)

See:

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

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Refusal of the Commission to continue examination of a complaint inviting it to act under Article 106(3) TFEU — Not included — Inadmissibility (Arts 106(3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 19-22)

2. Competition — Undertakings enjoying special or exclusive rights granted by Member States — Exclusive licence for the operation of video lottery apparatus — Recourse to Article 106 TFEU to remedy anti-competitive conduct due to the initiative of the undertakings — Unlawfulness — Appropriate legal basis — Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU, 106 TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24, 25, 30, 36-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013 by which it informed the applicants of its decision to reject their complaint and to close the file regarding Case COMP/39.981 — Stanleybet Group 2/OPAPP.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene.

3. Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
8.

Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Freezing of funds of persons, entities or bodies associated with the Syrian regime — Obligation to communicate the reasoning to the person concerned at the same time as the measure adversely affecting him or immediately thereafter — Limits — Safety of the Union and the Member States or conduct of their international relations — Decision falling within a context known to the person concerned, enabling him to understand the scope of the measure taken against him — Whether a summary statement of reasons is sufficient (Art. 296, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 363/2013) (see paras 89-91)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation as defendant, without error on the part of the applicant, of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty (Art. 263, first para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see para. 36)

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

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

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

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

Subject of the case

Re:

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

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Petros Khatzithoma and Elenitsa Khatzithoma are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).
64

In any event, it should be noted that the first contested decision does not constitute a regulatory act within the meaning of the third situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. As regards the applicants’ argument that the first contested decision is a regulatory act because it constitutes a non-legislative act, it must be stated that it is true that the meaning of ‘regulatory act’ for the purposes of the third situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU must be understood as covering all acts of general application apart from legislative acts (orders of 4 June 2012 in Eurofer v Commission, T‑381/11, ECR, EU:T:2012:273, paragraph 42, and of 7 March 2014 in FESI v Council, T‑134/10, EU:T:2014:143, paragraph 23). In the present case, the first contested decision does not constitute a legislative act, since it was not adopted in accordance with either the ordinary legislative procedure or a special legislative procedure within the meaning of paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 289 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2011 in Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission, T‑262/10, ECR, EU:T:2011:623, paragraph 21; order in FESI v Council, EU:T:2014:143, paragraph 25). However, that decision is not of general application in that it does not apply to objectively determined situations and does not produce legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in general and in the abstract (see, to that effect, orders in Bricmate v Council, paragraph 61 above, EU:T:2014:53, paragraph 65, and FESI v Council, EU:T:2014:143, paragraph 24). The first contested decision relates to the acceptance of a specific undertaking by the Commission and is addressed solely to the companies listed in the Annex thereto, accepting their undertaking offer. It does not therefore constitute a regulatory act, which also precludes the action’s being admissible under the third situation referred to in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.
4.

Application for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Measures not to prejudge the decision on the substance of the case — Claim for access to documents the subject-matter of a refusal decision challenged by an action for annulment — Measure likely to deprive the future decision on the merits of its effectiveness — Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 30, 31)
Order of the President of the General Court of 6 May 2014 — Frucona Košice v Commission

(Case T‑103/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — Alcohol and spirits — Cancellation of a tax debt in a collective bankruptcy procedure — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of any urgency — Prima facie case not made out’

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. 104(2)) (see paras 16-18, 23, 67)

2. 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 22, 46)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company — Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-54, 57, 64)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Whether there exists any means of obtaining legal redress before the national court against national implementing measures — Power of the EU judicature to take such means of redress into consideration when assessing whether the application for interim measures is well founded (Arts 263 TFEU, 267 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 59, 60)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Public interest defended by the Commission and interest of the aid beneficiary — No exceptional circumstances — Primacy of the public interest (Arts 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 68, 69)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2013) 6261 final of 16 October 2013 on State aid SA.18211 (C 25/2005) (ex NN 21/2005), implemented by the Slovak Republic for Frucona Košice a.s., in so far as it orders the Slovak Republic to recover the aid.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission

(Case T‑298/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 —

Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission

(Case T‑298/14 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case’

Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Examination prima facie of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to open a formal investigation procedure in respect of a State measure provisionally classified as new aid — Measure allowing a ceiling on a levy on the consumption of electricity — Recovery of the levy within the discretion of private electricity supply undertakings — Provisional classification as a measure granting an advantage attributable to the State — Manifest error of assessment by the Commission — None prima facie (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 14, 19-23)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 2 February 2015 — Gascogne Sack Deutschland and Gascogne v European Union

(Case T‑577/14)

‛Actions for damages — Reasonable time — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Representation of the Union — Dismissal of objection of inadmissibility’

1. Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Designation of the Union in the context of a compensation action — Admissibility (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(b)) (see paras 15-19)

2. Actions for damages — Action brought against the institution having allegedly rendered the EU liable — Admissibility — Conditions (Arts 13 TEU and 19 TEU; Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 22-29, 35, 38, 43)

3. Judicial proceedings — Duration of the proceedings before the General Court — Reasonable time — Dispute concerning whether there has been an infringement of the competition rules — Failure to act within a reasonable time — Consequences — Non-contractual liability — Action based on excessive duration of the procedure before the General Court — Composition of the judgment formation (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para.) (see paras 54-64)

Re:

ACTION for damages in respect of loss allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of excessive duration of the procedure before the General Court in Cases T‑72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission and T‑79/06 Sachsa Verpackung v Commission.

Operative part

1. The objection of inadmissibility is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2014 —

STC v Commission

(Case T‑355/14 R)

‛Interim measures — Public services contracts — Tendering procedure — Construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant — Rejection of tender submitted by a tenderer — Application for interim measures — Prima facie case not made out’

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 — 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. 104(2)) (see paras 12-15)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action — Action against a Commission decision to reject a tender for a public contract — Rejection based on non-conformity of the tender with the contract documents — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and Regulations No 966/2012 and No 1268/2012 — Prima facie absence (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2); European Parliament and Council Regulation No 966/2012; Commission Regulation No 1268/2012) (see paras 17-32)

Re:

In essence (i) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision of 3 April 2014 in which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by STC in tendering procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC for the construction and maintenance of a tri-generation plant with a gas turbine on the Ispra (Italy) site of its Joint Research Centre (JRC) (OJ 2013/S 137-237146), the decision in which the Commission awarded the contract to CPL Concordia and consequently all other subsequent decisions; and (ii) an application to suspend the operation of the Commission’s decision to refuse the request for access to the documents and an interim measure to allow the full exercise of the right of access to the tender documents.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 June 2015 —

Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T‑552/14)

‛Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — 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, 17)

3. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Composite mark — Need to take account of the overall perception of the combination by the relevant public (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 15, 16)

4. Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark Extra (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19, 21)

5. 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. 27)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 199/2014‑5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.