ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/26

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Fricopan Back v Commission

(Case T-300/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 245/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Fricopan Back GmbH Immekath (Klötze, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

3. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

4. Fricopan Back GmbH Immekath shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

5. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/18

Order of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — ERTICO — ITS EUROPE v Commission

(Case T-499/14) (1)

((Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Criteria for defining micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in European Union policies - Decision of the Validation Panel of the Commission - Withdrawal of the decision - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 221/25)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation — Intelligent Transport & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Wellinger and K. T’Syen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Clausen, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Validation Panel of the European Commission of 15 April 2014 declaring that the applicant cannot be qualified as a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36).

Operative part of the order

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

2) The European Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by European Road Transport Telematics Implementation Coordination Organisation - Intelligent Transport Systems & Services Europe (ERTICO — ITS EUROPE).

(1) OJ C 380, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/60

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Schumacher Packaging v Commission

(Case T-265/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schumacher Packaging GmbH (Schwarzenberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

3. Schumacher Packaging GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/25

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Erbslöh Aluminium v Commission

(Case T-298/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 245/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH (Velbert, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

3. Erbslöh Aluminium GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/62

Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)

(Case T-815/14) (1)

(2015/C 311/71)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/51

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission

(Case T-174/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

3. Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/31

Order of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — VSM Geneesmiddelen v Commission

(Case T-578/14) (1)

((Action for failure to act and for annulment - Consumer protection - Health claims relating to food - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Botanical substances - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - No interest in bringing proceedings - Non-actionable measure - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: U. Grundmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Enegren and subsequently by M. Wilderspin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to instruct the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to assess health claims relating to botanical substances as a precondition for the adoption of the definitive list of permitted 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) and, in the alternative, an application for annulment of the decision purportedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 19 June 2014 refusing to instruct the EFSA to assess those claims.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. VSM Geneesmiddelen BV is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/29

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2015 — CGI Luxembourg and Intrasoft International v Parliament

(Case T-769/14) (1)

((Action for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Development and maintenance of production information systems - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Annulment of the contested decisions - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 320/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: CGI Luxembourg SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg); and Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: B. Simon and L. Darie, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for, first, annulment of the Parliament’s decisions to rank the applicants’ tender second in the cascade for the purposes of awarding the contract in respect of Lot 3, ‘Development and maintenance of production information systems’, in the open call for tenders PE/ITEC/ITS14, ‘External Provision of IT Services’, and to award the first cascading contract in that tendering procedure to another consortium and, secondly, the award of damages.

Operative part of the order

1) There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

2) The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred in connection with the interim proceedings.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/30

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — EEB v Commission

(Case T-565/14) (1)

((Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Commission decision concerning the notification by Poland of a transitional national plan as referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU on industrial emissions - Refusal of internal review - Measure of individual scope - Aarhus Convention - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Lateness - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))

(2015/C 381/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, S. Petrova and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 804 final of 17 February 2014 on the notification by the Republic of Poland of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU, on industrial emissions, and, secondly, for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 June 2014 (Ares (2014) 1915757) declaring inadmissible the applicant’s request that the Commission review its decision of 17 February 2014.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Poland.

3. European Environmental Bureau (EEB) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. EEB, the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Republic of Poland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.

(1) OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/61

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — SEA v Commission

(Case T-674/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/84)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/55

Order of the General Court of 27 November 2015 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-636/14) (1)

((Language regime - Vacancy notice for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union - Language requirements in the module for the online submission of applications - Alleged divergence with the vacancy notice published in the Official Journal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 027/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, V. Čepaitė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Vacancy Notice COM/2014/10356 for a post of director of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (OJ 2014, C 185 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

3. The Republic of Lithuania is ordered to bear its own costs relating to its intervention.

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/56

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2015 — Kafetzakis and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-38/14) (1)

((Application for failure to act and for damages - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Involvement of the private sector - Harm resulting from the reduction of bonds provided as a redundancy payment - Statements of heads of State or governments of the Euro zone and of EU institutions - Statement of the Eurogroup - Lack of substantiation of causality with the alleged harm - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 389/63)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Georgios Kafetzakis (Athens, Greece) and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to the order (represented by: C. Papadimitriou, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Troupiotis and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents); European Council; Eurogroup; Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, M. Balta and E. Dumitriu Segnana, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. P. Keppenne and B. Smulders, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: P. Papapaschalis and P. Senkovic, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) a declaration that the defendants unlawfully failed to adopt the necessary legislative measures for ensuring that the bonds held by the applicants as employees made redundant by Olympiaki Aeroporia would not be affected by the private sector involvement in the debt relief programme plan (PSI), reducing the value of Greek State debt, and (ii) damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants resulting from that unlawful failure to act.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders Mr. Georgios Kafetzakis and the 102 other applicants whose names are indicated in the annex to pay the costs of the proceedings.

(1) OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/61

Order of the General Court of 15 January 2016 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM

(Case T-564/14) (1)

(2016/C 098/78)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 360, 27.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/55

Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe)

(Case T-766/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark FoodSafe - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 038/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Lins, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2440/2013-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG and Actega Terra GmbH.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Actega Terra GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/16

Order of the General Court of 6 September 2016 — Vanbreda Risk & Benefits v Commission

(Case T-199/14) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Agreement on the amounts of compensation calculated in respect of loss - No need to adjudicate - Costs))

(2016/C 475/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vanbreda Risk & Benefits (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented: initially by P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, and subsequently by P. Teerlinck, P. de Bandt and R. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by S. Delaude and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decision of 30 January 2014 by which the Commission rejected the tender submitted by the applicant for Lot No 1 in the call for tenders OIB.DR.2/PO/2013/062/591, relating to insurance cover for property and persons (OJ 2013/S 155-269617), and awarded that lot to another company and, second, for damages.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of Vanbreda Risk & Benefits incurred in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures before the General Court.

(1) OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/26

Order of the General Court of 10 June 2016 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-381/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Admissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well-founded action))

(2016/C 279/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the order

1. Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine are annulled in so far as they relate to Mr Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka.

2. The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mr Pshonka.

3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

PROCEDURE - ABSTENTION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY - CAPACITY TO LODGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

( ECSC TREATY, ART . 35 )

Summary

( CF . PARA . 1, SUMMARY, JUDGMENT IN JOINED CASES 7 AND 9/54 ):

THE EXPRESSION " AS THE CASE MAY BE " MUST BE CONSIDERED AS GIVING THE POWER TO RAISE A MATTER WITH THE HIGH AUTHORITY TO THE PERSONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 35 WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE DECISION WHICH THE HIGH AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED TO TAKE OR IN THE RECOMMENDATION WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE .

THE ASSOCIATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 35 MAY ONLY BE ASSOCIATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS WITHIN THE MEANING GIVEN TO THE WORD " UNDERTAKING " BY ARTICLE 80 OF THE TREATY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WHOLE TREATY .

*/ 654J0007 /*.