ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2012 — Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann and Others v Commission

(Case T-379/11)

‛Action for annulment — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Allocation of free greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Commission decision determining the product benchmarks to apply for the calculation of the allocation of emission allowances — Article 263, fourth paragraph TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Commission decision laying down transitional rules for the whole Union concerning the harmonised allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Action by an association representing the interests of the European steelmaking industry — Undertakings represented not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Art. 10a) (see paras 22, 23, 26-31)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope save for legislative measures — Commission decision laying down transitional rules for the whole Union concerning the harmonised allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Included — Act entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the said treaty provision (Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 289(1) to (3) TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive No 2003/87, Arts 10a and 11(1)) (see paras 34-37, 48-50, 52)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

—

Measures of organisation of procedure

—

Application to remove from the file internal documents of an institution

—

Documents improperly obtained

—

Retention on file

—

Criteria (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 64) (see paras 11, 12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 1 April 2011 denying full access to Document No 9689/10 containing a draft Council decision authorising the European Commission to negotiate the accession agreement of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Operative part

Operative part

1. Council Document DS 1930/10 of 22 December 2010 constituting a Commission working document, included in Annex A.13 to the application, and the extract from that document in paragraph 44 of the application, shall be removed from the case-file.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 24 October 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-442/11)

‛Action for annulment — Act not subject to review — Act which is confirmatory, in part, and informative, in part — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Failure to identify the alleged conduct or to define the alleged damage — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — No proof of damage — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law’

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Concept — Measures producing binding legal effects — Purely informative measure — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 60-64)

2. Actions for annulment — Action brought against a decision confirming a decision which was not contested within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility — Meaning of confirmatory decision — Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors — Not included — Complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman — No new and substantial facts or re-examination of the decision (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 66-68, 85, 87, 89, 90)

3. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Decision neither published nor notified to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the content and reasons — Duty to request the whole text of the decision within a reasonable time once its existence is known (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 79)

4. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Application not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c) and 48(2)) (see paras 92, 96, 99-101)

5. Non-contractual liability — Conditions — Damage — Causal link — Burden of proof — Claim for compensation without explanation as to the damage alleged and the link between that damage and the conduct of the Community institution — Conditions not fulfilled (Art. 340 TFEU) (see paras 102-104, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 123, 125)

6. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 146)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of a letter of the Commission of 27 May 2011, second, for an order for the Commission to pay damages and, third, for an order for the Commission to publish a communiqué.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 2014 —

Canon Europa v Commission

(Case T‑34/11)

‛Action for annulment — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation on the combined nomenclature — Inclusion — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 861/2010, Annex) (see paras 33-39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55)

Re:

APPLICATION to annul in part the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.

3. Canon Europa NV is ordered to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 2014 —

Canon Europa v Commission

(Case T‑34/11)

‛Action for annulment — Customs Union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissible’

Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ in Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — Any act of general scope for legislative measures — Regulation on the combined nomenclature — Inclusion — Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision — Existence of internal remedies against those measures — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation No 861/2010, Annex) (see paras 33-39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55)

Re:

APPLICATION to annul in part the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by Konica Minolta Business Solutions Europe GmbH and Olivetti SpA.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2013 — Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs v Commission

(Case T-259/11)

‛Action for annulment — Phare programme — Project concerning the development of a centre for innovation and testing of construction products — Commission decision to undertake recovery of part of the sums paid — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility’

Actions for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Commission decision addressed to a Member State to effect recovery of part of the sums paid under a PHARE programme — Action brought by the scientific association which received those sums — Not directly concerned — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 37-39, 42)

Re:

ACTION brought by the association Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision notified to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia by letter dated 16 November 2010.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The application for access to Commission documents is also dismissed.

3. Zinātnes, inovāciju un testēšanas centrs is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the President of the General Court of 29 July 2011 – Holcim (Deutschland) and Holcim v Commission

(Case T-293/11 R)

Interim relief – Competition – Request for information – Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency

1. 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 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 12-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 19-20)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 – Possibility of the Commission imposing penalty payments and fines in case of non-compliance with the deadline for sending the information – Realisation of the damage hypothetical in nature (Art. 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Arts 18(4) and 23(1)(b)) (see paras 21-23)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from possible unlawful use of data obtained in the context of a request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 – None (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(4)) (see paras 25-26)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2363 final of 31 March 2011 concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39.520 – Cement and related products).

Operative part

1.The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 9 June 2011 – GRP Security v Court of Auditors

(Case T-87/11 R)

Interim measures – Public service contracts – Finding that there were irregularities in certain documents provided by the successful tenderer – Decisions imposing administrative sanctions on the successful tenderer and unilateral termination of the contract – Application for suspension of the operation of a measure – Lack of urgency

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 15-17)

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 – Assessment having regard to the size of the undertaking and the situation of the group to which it belongs (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24, 30-31)

3. Application 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 an additional document to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with the interim procedure (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see paras 26, 28)

4. 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 TFEU, 278 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 35)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Damage having already occurred – Damage of a purely hypothetical nature – Not included (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-38,40)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension, first, of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 14 January 2011 claiming damages from the applicant of EUR 16 000 and reserving the right to claim further amounts by way of damages and, secondly, of its decision the same day imposing on the applicant the administrative penalty of exclusion from contracts and subsidies financed by the budget of the European Union for a provisional period of three months.

Operative part

1.The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 2 December 2011 – Carbunión v Council

(Case T-176/11 R)

Application for interim measures – State aid – Decision on aid intended to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Lack of standing to bring proceedings – Lack of concordance with the main action – Non-severability – Inadmissibility – Balance of interests

1. 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 court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-14)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Application for partial suspension of the operation of Decision 2010/787 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position – No interest in bringing an action (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 17-21)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Application seeking measures outside the context of the dispute in the main proceedings – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 22-24)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Application for partial suspension of operation of a decision – Decision 2010/787 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines – Suspension involving a modification of the substance of the decision – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 26-34)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Concept – Preponderance of the public interest over private interests (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 36-39, 41-43)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial suspension of operation of Council Decision 2010/787/EU of 10 December 2010 on State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 24) and, in the alternative, application for full suspension of operation of that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 14 October 2011 – Rousse Industry v Commission

(Case T-489/11 R)

Application for interim measures – State aid – Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery – Application for suspension of operation – Failure to have regard to formal requirements – Inadmissibility

1. 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 to remedy deficiencies – Incompatibility with proceedings for interim measures (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 5-6, 15-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Damage which may subsequently be made good – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 8-9, 12-13)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Main action seeking annulment of a Commission decision ordering repayment of State aid – Existence before the national court of remedies against the national implementing measures – Possibility of avoiding serious and irreparable damage (Art. 278 TFEU) (see para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2011) 4903 final of 13 July 2011 declaring incompatible with the internal market the aid granted by Bulgaria in favour of Rousse Industry in the form of rescheduling of debts owed to the State (State aid C 12/2010 and N 389/2009) in so far as that decision orders the recovery of that aid from the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 January 2012 – Henkel and Henkel France v Commission

(Case T-607/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision refusing to transmit documents to a national competition authority – Application for interim measures – No interest in bringing proceedings – Disregard of formal requirements – Measures requested not provisional in character – Inadmissibility

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 13-15)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension – Claim for suspension of a Commission decision refusing to send documents to a national competition authority – Suspension not capable of changing the applicant’s position – Not included (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 19, 21)

3. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – 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 – Requirement not met – Inadmissibility of the application for interim measures (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 23-24)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in relation to the Commission’s decision of 30 September 2011 (Case COMP/39.579 – Consumer detergents – and Case 09/0007 F) dismissing the request of the French competition authority that the Commission transfer to it, in the context of Case 09/0007 F concerning the French detergents sector, a number of documents produced in Case COMP/39.579.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 October 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia and Hoern v Commission

(Case T­-466/11)

Action for annulment — State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard — Measures implementing the Commission’s decision finding the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering that it be repaid — Inadmissibility

1. Proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute — Application initiating proceedings not sufficiently clear and precise — Inadmissibility (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 19-22)

2. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date on which national authorities communicated the contested measure to the applicant — Precise knowledge of the contents — Action brought after expiry of the time-limit — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(2)) (see paras 24-26)

3. Proceedings — Measures of organisation of procedure — Request for production of documents — Documents constituting the contested decision — Documents not identified by the applicant — Inadmissibility of the application (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 44(1)(c), 64 and 65) (see paras 28, 29)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission letter C(2010) 8274 final of 1 December 2010 relating to ‘State aid case CR 16/2004 — Implementation of the negative Decision with recovery concerning State aid in favour of [the company Ellinika Nafpigeia AE] — Invocation by Greece of Article 346 paragraph 1(b) TFEU and proceedings under Article 348 paragraph 1 TFEU’, as supplemented by the documents and other material on the file of which the applicants became partially aware in June 2011.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application by Nafpigikes kai viomichanikes epicheiriseis Elefsinas for leave to intervene.

3. Ellinika Nafpigeia AE and 2. Hoern Beteiligungs GmbH are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.