ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 March 2016 —

Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission

(Case T‑437/15)

‛Action for annulment — Agriculture — Protective measures against pests of plants — Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Meaning of ‘regulatory act’ — Any act of general scope save for legislative acts — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 21)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Regulatory acts — Acts not comprising implementing measures and concerning the applicant directly — Concept of implementing measures — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Act comprising implementing measures (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 23, 30, 33)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Individual concern — Criteria — Decision of the Commission concerning measures designed to prevent the introduction and spread in the EU of the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa — Plant nursery undertakings falling within the category of operators concerned by the decision without being individualised by the application in their regard of the provisions in question — Not individually affected — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2015/789, Art. 9 and Annex I) (see paras 35, 36)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (OJ 2015 15 L 125, p. 36), and, in particular, Articles 6 and 9 thereof, read in conjunction with Annex I to that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 —

Alcimos Consulting v ECB

(Case T‑368/15)

‛Action for annulment — Action for compensation — Decisions adopted by the Governing Council of the ECB — Provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks — Ceiling — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility — Infringement of procedural requirements’

1. Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Interest to be assessed at the time at which an action is brought — Action brought against a measure producing binding legal effects on the applicant — Repeal of the contested act in the course of the proceedings — Declaration that no need to adjudicate — Not permissible — Applicant maintaining an interest in obtaining recognition that the contested act unlawful (Arts 263 TFEU and 266 TFEU) (see paras 23, 25)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Whether directly concerned — Criteria — Decisions of the European Central Bank on the provision of emergency liquidity to Greek banks — Action by an undertaking considering itself prejudiced by the adoption of national measures applying those decisions — No automaticity between the national measures and the contested decisions — No direct concern — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 29, 33, 36-38)

3. Judicial 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 for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Imprecision as to the conduct alleged against that institution, the nature of the damage and the causal link — Inadmissibility — No infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see paras 42, 46)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 28 June 2015 by which it was decided to maintain the ceiling to the provision of emergency liquidity assistance to Greek banks at the level decided on 26 June 2015 and for annulment of the decision of the Governing Council of the ECB of 6 July 2015 by which it was decided to maintain that ceiling at that same level and to adjust the haircuts on collateral accepted by the Bank of Greece in that respect, and application, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Case T‑702/15

BikeWorld GmbH

v

European Commission

(Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)

Summary — Order of the General Court (First Chamber), 20 November 2017

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Conditions relating to a signatory — Independent third party compared to the parties –Company represented by one of its shareholders, holding 10% of the capital, acting as a lawyer — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 40, fourth para., and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 116(3))

See the text of the decision.

(see paras 31-35, 37, 38, 41-43)
47

It should be added that the judgment in NITC, cited in paragraph 14 above (EU:T:2014:608), having annulled the initial listing of the applicant, became res judicata. It is true that res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question and can be invoked only if the action which gave rise to that decision was between the same parties, had the same subject-matter and was based on the same cause of action (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 February 2015 in Walton v Commission, T‑261/14 P, ECR-SC, EU:T:2015:110, paragraphs 35 and 36 and the case-law cited). It is therefore not possible for the applicant to claim, in respect of the contested measures, that the judgment in NITC is, strictly speaking, res judicata since those measures relate to a different period of the applicant’s economic activity than that which was the subject-matter of the measures which had been annulled by that judgment. However, it cannot be overlooked that that activity of the applicant, consisting of the transport of Iranian oil, has remained unchanged in substance and that the difference in the periods of activity referred to is the result of the applicant’s relisting, carried out by the Council on a factual basis that has also not changed in substance. It could therefore be considered that, in the present case, the application of the concept of res judicata is excluded only on account of the Council’s action in extending artificially the restrictive measures imposed on the applicant, by now presenting evidence which could have been invoked at the time of the applicant’s initial listing. Such an approach, even if it is not considered incompatible with the concept of res judicata, could, in any event, contribute to an infringement of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy.
39

Thirdly, by claiming that the applicants would be able to cover the fines imposed by having recourse to the resources of a number of cooperatives which are shareholders of CCPL, particularly CMB and CCFS, the Commission seemingly disregards the cooperative structure of the CCPL group. Unlike an economic group which, within the framework of an integrated vertical organisation, is controlled by a parent company which identifies and determines both the economic strategy and the common interests of all members of the group, resulting in reciprocal financial responsibility, the members which make up a cooperative retain, as a general rule, a higher level of economic and financial independence. Based on the principle of cooperation, a cooperative’s only objective is to serve the interests of its members, particularly by providing services to them, organising the centralised sale of their products, purchasing raw materials on a joint basis or offering work opportunities. Therefore, a member will have only a very limited objective interest in providing financial support to another member of the same cooperative. As regards a member’s interest in ensuring the financial survival of ‘its’ cooperative where there is a risk of compulsory winding-up, this will also be of a limited nature since it will depend on the specific benefits the member receives from membership, the possibilities of joining another cooperative, as the case may be a newly established cooperative, where the previous cooperative has ceased to exist, as well as the costs of joining another cooperative.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 22 February 2021 – Brinkmann (Steel Trading) and Others v Commission and ECB

(Case T‑161/15) ( 1 )

(Action for damages – Economic and monetary policy – Stability support programme for Cyprus – Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Equal treatment – Principle of proportionality – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions for damages – Subject matter – Application for compensation for damage attributable to the European Union – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Application for compensation for damage caused by the national authorities – Jurisdiction of the national courts (Arts 268 and 340, second and third paras, TFEU) (see paras 66-68)

2. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Coordination of economic policies – European stability mechanism – Allocation of new tasks to the Commission and the European Central Bank – No effect on the powers conferred by the EU and FEU Treaties on those institutions – Ability to plead in an action for compensation that those tasks have been carried out unlawfully (Art. 17(1) TEU; Art. 268 TFEU; Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism, Art. 13(3) and (4)) (see paras 75, 78-80)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second and third paras, TFEU) (see para. 86)

4. EU law – Principles – Equal treatment – Definition – Burden of proof (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 20 and 21) (see paras 92, 93)

5. Economic and monetary policy – Economic policy – Coordination of economic policies – European stability mechanism – Conclusion of a memorandum of understanding providing for the restructuring of two national banks – Conclusion of a memorandum of understanding providing for the conversion of uninsured deposits in a domestic bank into shares and for the temporary freezing of other uninsured deposits in that bank – Imposition of measures involving the contribution of depositors to the restructuring of the banks concerned – Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality – None (Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism; Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013) (see paras 112, 114-116, 120, 123, 128-130, 137)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Brinkmann (Steel Trading) Ltd and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

( 1 ) OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 January 2017 —

Topera v EUIPO (RHYTHMVIEW)

(Case T‑119/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for the European Union word mark RHYTHMVIEW — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 16-18)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Concept—Neologism consisting of elements descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services concerned—Whether included where the nature of the combination is not unusual (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 19)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service—Word mark RHYTHMVIEW (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 24-26, 28-32)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 January 2016 (Case R 1368/2015-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign RHYTHMVIEW as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 14 March 2017 —

Karl Conzelmann v EUIPO (LIKE IT)

(Case T‑21/16)

(EU trade mark — Application for registration of the word mark LIKE IT — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

1. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Concept—Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16, 17)

2. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Distinctive character—Application of specific criteria for assessment—Not permissible (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see para. 18)

3. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Marks constituted of advertising slogans—Flattering promotional formula (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 19-22, 34)

4. EU trade mark—Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark—Absolute grounds for refusal—Marks devoid of any distinctive character—Word mark LIKE IT (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 24, 25, 27, 31, 35, 36, 44)

5. EU trade mark—Decisions of the Office—Principle of equal treatment—Principle of sound administration—EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice—Principle of legality (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see paras 40-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 November 2015 (Case R 223/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign LIKE IT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2016 —

Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T‑41/16)

‛Actions for annulment — Application for registration of a protected designation of origin ‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’ — Commission letters concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition proceedings relating to the registration procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)’

Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Commission letters concerning the participation of a legal person in the opposition proceedings concerning the procedure for registration of a protected designation of origin — Act not intended to produce legal effects — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1151/2012) (see paras 31-34, 41-43)

Re:

ACTION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of two letters from the European Commission of 18 November 2015 (Ref.Ares (2015) 5171539) and of 15 January 2016 (Ref.Ares (2016) 220922) concerning the applicants’ involvement in the opposition procedure relating to the procedure for registering the cheese called ‘Halloumi/Hellim’ as a protected designation of origin.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the Republic of Cyprus.

3. Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry, Animal Breeders and Producers Association, Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd, Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association and Mrs Fatma Garanti are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the interlocutory proceedings.
Appeal—Interest in bringing proceedings—Condition—Appeal capable of procuring an advantage for the party bringing it

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 9)

(see para. 13)
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2017 —

Comprojecto — Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB

(Case T‑22/16)

(Action for failure to act, for annulment and for damages — Economic and monetary policy — Supervision of credit institutions — Prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering — Corrective measures — No invitation to act — Lack of precision in the application — Act not open to challenge — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Actions for failure to act—Institution called upon to act—Invitation to act—No proof of actual receipt by the institution concerned—Inadmissibility (Art. 265, second para., TFEU) (see paras 22-24, 26, 27)

2. EU law—Sources—Universal Postal Convention—Not included (see para. 25)

3. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Concept—Invitation to act under Article 265 TFEU returned to the sender after non-delivery to the addressee institution—Not included (Arts 263 TFEU and 265 TFEU) (see para. 31)

4. Non-contractual liability—Conditions—Unlawfulness—Damage—Causal link—One of the conditions not satisfied—Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 340, second para., TFEU) (see para. 34)

Re:

First, an application based on Article 265 TFEU and seeking a declaration that the ECB illegally failed to take action against Portuguese credit institutions within the context of the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering, secondly, an application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the act by which the ECB returned to the applicants the invitation to act which they had sent to it, and, thirdly, an application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicants as a result of that failure to act.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Article 123(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where the judgment by default is enforceable, the General Court may, however, grant a stay of execution until it has given its decision on any application under Article 166 of those rules to have that judgment set aside. For the purposes of application of the Rules of Procedure, in accordance with Article 1(2)(a) thereof, the term ‘General Court’ means, in cases assigned or referred to a Chamber, that Chamber. It follows that the stay of execution of the judgment by default is the subject of specific provisions expressly conferring that jurisdiction on the General Court rather than on the President of the General Court in his capacity as the judge hearing the application for interim measures. It is thus apparent from the wording and scheme of both the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Rules of Procedure that the President of the General Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on an application for suspension of operation of a default judgement.

(see paras 9-11, 13)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — De Masi v Commission

(Case T‑423/16)

(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the work of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’ set up by the Council — Response to initial requests after an equitable arrangement — No confirmatory decision — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Actionable measures—Meaning—Measures producing binding legal effects—Preparatory measures—Not included—Position originally adopted in the procedure for access for the public to Commission documents—Preparatory act (Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6 to 8; Commission Decision 2001/937, Annex, Arts 2 to 4) (see paras 28-31)

2. EU institutions—Right of public access to documents—Regulation No 1049/2001—Institution’s duty of assistance where application not sufficiently precise (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 6(2)) (see para 32)

3. EU institutions—Right of public access to documents—Regulation No 1049/2001—Application concerning a very large number of documents—Institution’s right to extend the period to adopt the decision—Exceptional nature—Possibility for the institution to agree with the applicant to find an equitable arrangement (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6(3), 7 and 8) (see para 33)

Re:

APPLICATION based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions allegedly contained, first, in the letter of 20 May 2016, and second, in the letter of 13 July 2016, responding to the requests for access to the documents of the ‘Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)’, submitted by the applicant on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
5.

Judicial 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 for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution—Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, first para. and 53, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 40)