ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 37-38, 44)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 40-42)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/419/EU of 28 July 2010 renewing the authorisation for continued marketing of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1), authorising foods and food ingredients containing or consisting of field maize Bt11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Decision 2004/657/EC (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 11).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 13, 15)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure – Need to be taken into consideration when examining liability (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 14, 26)

3. Agriculture – Common agricultural policy – Financing by the EAGF and the EAFRD – Grant of aids and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative controls and spot checks – Scope – Unreliable controls – Refusal to assume responsibility (Art. 10 EC; Council Regulation No 1290/2005, Art. 9(1)) (see para. 19)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the lack of supervision, by the Commission, of the conditions for implementing standing invitations to tender for the purchase of cereals on the Community market, in this case maize held by the Hungarian intervention agency.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as obviously lacking any basis in law.

2. Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — Forgital Italy v Council

(Case T‑438/10)

‛Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Temporary suspension of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products — Amendment of the description of certain suspensions — Regulatory act comprising implementing measures — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Concept — Council regulation temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products — Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Regulations No 2913/92, Art. 59(1), and No 566/2010) (see paras 37-41, 52-54)

2. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Compliance with the applicant’s right to be heard — Scope (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 113) (see paras 59, 60)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as it amends the description of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties were suspended.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Forgital Italy SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.
Order of the President of the General Court of 26 March 2010 – Alisei v Commission

(Case T-16/10 R)

Interim measures – Programme establishing a ‘food facility’ intended for developing countries – Call for proposals for the grant of funding – Refusal of funding – Application for suspension of operation – Lack of interest in bringing proceedings – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

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 judge dealing with 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 11-13)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension – Negative administrative decision (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Detailed statement of the subject-matter of the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(d), and 104(3)) (see para. 27)

4. Application for interim measures – Interest in bringing proceedings (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 28-32)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-36)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-45)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 46)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures relating to the selection of applications for funding submitted under the ‘Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries’ (EuropeAid/128608/C/ACT/Multi).

Operative part

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

State aid — Existing aid — Examination by the Commission of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market — Undertakings given by the paying Member State — Discretion of the Commission — Judicial review — Limits (Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 18, 19(1), and 26(1)) (see paras 56-59, 73, 82, 87)
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2010 – Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-61/10)

Action for failure to act – Failure to adopt measures – Application for directions to be issued – Request for protective measures – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law

1. Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – 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. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 27-31)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions (Art. 265, third para., TFEU) (see paras 32-38)

3. Actions for failure to act – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Direction issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see para. 41)

Re:

APPLICATION for a declaration of failure to act on the part of the European Parliament and the European Commission in that those institutions unlawfully failed to respond to the applicant’s letter of 6 October 2009, an application for directions to be issued and a request for protective measures.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 30 June 2010 – Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-61/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Disregard of formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. 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(2) and (3)) (see paras 12, 14-18)

2. 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 (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 13)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures to safeguard the applicant's physical safety, his fundamental rights and those of European citizens who might be affected.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2011 – Département du Gers v Commission

(Case T-482/10)

Action for annulment – Environment and protection of human health – Genetically modified food and feed – No individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision authorising the marketing of food and animal feed containing genetically modified maize (GMO) – Action brought by a regional authority of a Member State based on the consequences of the measure in its territory – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1829/2003) (see paras 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 43)

2. European Union law – Principles – Right to effective judicial protection – Action brought by a regional entity seeking annulment of a Commission decision addressed to a Member State – Applicant not individually concerned – Infringement of the said principle – None (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see paras 39-41)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/432/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507x59122 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1xDAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 202, p. 11).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission

(Case T-202/10)

State aid – Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations – Existing aid – Decision accepting Member State’s commitments – Action for annulment – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market – Access to the aid scheme opened on the basis of objective criteria and without limitation as to the number of potential beneficiaries – Action of a company eligible for that scheme – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 23-24, 26-28, 32-33, 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) – Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV, the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, the Société wallonne du logement, the Union sociale pour l’habitat and The European Liaison Committee for Social Housing (Cecodhas).

3. Stichting Woonlinie, Stichting Allee Wonen, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting WoonInvest and Stichting Woonstede are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
29

Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant claims, such a solution does not deprive Article 263 TFEU of its effectiveness and does not prejudice either the principle of legal certainty or its rights of defence. It is true that it makes the admissibility of an action by associations conditional upon no action having been brought by other parties, in this case their members. However, such a situation cannot be considered as being a source of uncertainty or insecurity, as it can be legitimately expected of an association responsible for protecting the interests of its members that it is aware of actions brought by them and vice versa. Moreover, the inadmissibility of the applicant association’s action by reason of actions brought by its members does not affect the effectiveness of Article 263 TFEU and its rights of defence, that is, in essence, its right to effective judicial protection. There are two possibilities: either the applicant association brings an action to defend the interests of its members who have locus standi and the action declared admissible will be that of the member of the association or that of the association depending on whether or not one of its members has brought its own action; or the association brings an action to defend its own interest and its action may be declared admissible, even though actions have been brought by its members, where the existence of such an interest is established (see paragraphs 42 to 46 below).
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications 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 judge 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 16-19)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 27-28)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – 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 applicant company belongs – Protection of the financial interests of the Union taking priority over those of an individual controlling the applicant company (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 29-33)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Exceptional circumstances – Taking into account of the financial situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Assessment on a case-by-case basis (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 34-35)

5. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements – Statement of the pleas in law establishing a prima facie case for granting the measures sought – Lodging of an additional pleading in order to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the procedure for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 36)

6. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid – National implementing measures – National rights of action – Effect (Arts 263 TFEU and 278 TFEU) (see paras 46-48)

7. Acts of the institutions – Objection before the national court concerning the legality of a Union measure on the occasion of an action brought against a national implementing measure – Suspension granted of the national measure – Lawfulness – Conditions – Reference to the Court of Justice by means of a request for a preliminary ruling on validity – Serious and irreparable damage – Taking into account of the Union’s interest (see para. 49)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 8289 final of 14 December 2010 on State aid No C 38/2005 (ex NN 52/2004) granted by Germany to the Biria Group.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – 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; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60, second para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-18)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Causal link between the alleged damage and the contested act – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 27-28, 36-38)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative conditions (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU) (see paras 40-41)

Subject of the case

Re:

In essence, application for provisional measures and suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), in so far as those texts refer to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Commission letters calling upon the addressee to pay a fine, plus default interest, imposed for breach of the competition rules — Measures preparatory to pure implementation measures — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-21, 27-28, 32)

2. Competition — Fines — Discretion of the Commission — Scope — Power to fix the methods of payment of the fines — Imposition of interest for delay (Art. 299 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2)) (see paras 29‑30)

3. Union law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Action for annulment against measures not producing binding legal effects inadmissible — Possibility of parties challenging such measures by an action in non-contractual liability of the Union (Arts 268 TFEU, 299, fourth para., TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU) (see paras 43-45)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

4 September 2012

Harald Mische

v

European Parliament

and

Council of the European Union

‛Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Officials — Distortion of the facts — Appeal manifestly unfounded’

Appeal:

against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case F‑93/05 Mische v Parliament [2011] ECR-SC seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held:

The appeal is dismissed. Mr Harald Mische is to bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament in the present proceedings. The Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs.

Summary
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

20 November 2012

Case T‑491/11 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant — Reimbursement of avoidable costs — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 in Case F‑14/10 Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

1. Officials — Decision adversely affecting an official — Obligation to state reasons — Scope — No statement of reasons — Rectified in the response to the complaint

(Staff Regulations, Art. 25)

2. Union law — Principles — Rights of defence — Audi alteram partem rule — Compliance in the context of judicial proceedings — Scope

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision as to costs — Inadmissible if all other pleas are rejected

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2))

1. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 24)

See:

T‑221/02 Lebedef and Others v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I‑A‑211 and II‑1037, para. 62

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 32)

See:

C‑197/09 RX-II Review M v EMEA [2009] ECR I‑12033, paras 39 to 42

3. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 40)

See:

Judgment of 18 October 2010 in T‑515/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 59