ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2021 –

Advansa Manufacturing and Others v Commission

(Case T‑741/20)

(Action for annulment – State aid – Guidelines on certain State aid measures in the context of the system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading post-2021 – Eligible sectors – Exclusion of the man-made fibres manufacturing sector – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Guidelines on certain State aid in the context of the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system, including limitation of eligible sectors – Actions brought by companies in a non-eligible sector – Not directly concerned – Inadmissibility

(Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Notice 2020/C 317/04)

(see paras 26, 28-44, 47-50)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

3. Advansa Manufacturing GmbH and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 September 2021 –

Far Polymers and Others v Commission

(Case T‑722/20)

(Action for annulment – Dumping – Imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in China – Definitive anti-dumping duty – Lack of direct concern – Lack of individual concern – Legislative act involving implementing measures – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Criteria – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Whether an importer of the product concerned directly affected (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation 2020/1336) (see paras 22, 23)

2. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Individual concern – Criteria – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Action brought by an independent importer – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Regulation 2020/1336) (see paras 27, 29-34, 42)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts – Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties – Included – Act comprising implementing measures within the meaning of that treaty provision – Existence of internal remedies against those measures – Inadmissibility of action for annulment (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 952/2013, Arts 1(5), 44, 101(1), 102(1) and 104, and 2016/1036, Arts 9(4) and 14(1); Commission Regulation 2020/1336) (see paras 54-56, 58-61, 63, 64, 66, 68-71)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Conditions cumulative in nature – Inadmissibility of the action where just one of those conditions not met (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 82)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 315, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene submitted by Kuraray Europe GmbH, Sekisui Specialty Chemicals Europe SL and Wegochem Europe BV.

3. Far Polymers Srl, Gamma Chimica SpA, Carbochem Srl and Jeniuschem Srl shall pay the costs, except for those relating to the applications to intervene.
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 April 2021 –

Kühne v Parliament

(Case T‑468/20 R)

(Application for interim relief – Civil service – Officials – Reassignment – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Application for interim measures – No prima facie case)

1. Officials – Organization of departments – Assignment of staff – Reassignment – Administration’s discretion – Administration’s duty to have regard for the interests of officials – Consideration of the interests of the official concerned – Limits (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 7(1) and (24)) (see paras 42, 43, 48, 57)

2. Actions brought by officials – Pleas in law – Misuse of powers – Concept – Decision in the interest of the service – No misuse of powers (see paras 60, 61)

3. Officials – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Conditions – Specific assurances given by the authorities (see para. 64)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures (i) suspending the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 2 July 2020 reassigning the applicant to the European Parliament’s liaison office in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) with effect from 1 September 2020 and (ii) maintaining the applicant’s employment in her current post at the European Parliament’s liaison office in Berlin or other measures appropriate for maintaining the status quo in the interim pending the decision on the substance.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is rejected.

2. The order of 4 September 2020, Kühne v Parliament (T‑468/20 R), is revoked.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 July 2021 –

NG and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T‑646/20)

(Action for annulment – Road transport – Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 – Driver’s rest periods – Impossibility of taking certain rest periods in the vehicle – Return to the employer’s operational centre or to the place of residence for certain rest periods – Professional association – Standing to bring proceedings – Act not of individual concern – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Concept of ‘regulatory act’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Any measure of general application other than legislative acts (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 25)

2. Acts of the institutions – Legal nature – Legislative acts and regulatory acts – Distinguishing criteria – Procedure for the adoption of the act (Arts 289(1) and (3) and 294 TFEU) (see para. 26)

3. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Person individually affected by a measure of a general nature – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 43, 44, 47)

4. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by operators particularly affected by the contested regulation – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 51-53)

5. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action by a trade association set up to protect and represent its members – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 67, 68, 70, 73)

6. Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Action brought by an association of undertakings which took part in the procedure for adopting the measure – Admissibility – Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 69, 74)

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 June 2021 –

Portugal v Commission

(Case T‑95/21 R)

(Interim relief – State aid – Aid scheme implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone – Application of that aid scheme in breach of Commission Decisions C(2007) 3037 final and C(2013) 4043 final – Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of aid – Application for interim measures – Lack of urgency)

1. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 15-18)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 22-24)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Harm that can be pleaded by a Member State – Obligation to establish that, without the interim measure, State functions, public order or an entire sector of the economy would be seriously affected (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see para. 25)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Balancing of all the interests involved – Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid – Public interest defended by the Commission and the interest of the beneficiary of the aid – No urgency or exceptional circumstances – Primacy of the public interest (Arts 108(2) and 278 TFEU) (see paras 29-38)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable harm – Damage having already occurred – Reparation outside the purpose of the interim proceedings (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(2)) (see para. 43)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for interim measures seeking, first, suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) – Regime III and, second, that the Commission be ordered not to publish that decision in the Official Journal of the European Union until a judgment has been delivered in the main proceedings.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2021 –

CCPL and Others v Commission

(Case T‑130/21 R)

(Interim relief – Competition – Agreements, decisions and concerted practices – Retail food packaging market – Decision imposing fines – Financial guarantee – 2006 Guidelines on the method for setting fines – Ability to pay – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No prima facie case)

1. Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 18-21)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Prima facie examination of the pleas in law put forward in support of the main action – Action against a Commission decision imposing fines in competition matters – Plea alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons – Plea prima facie lacking in foundation (Arts 278, 279 and 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, Section 35) (see paras 24, 25, 39, 46)

3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Essential formality distinct from the merits of the decision (Art. 296 TFEU) (see paras 32-34, 44, 45)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2020) 8940 final of 17 December 2020 replacing the fines set by Commission Decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to the extent that it concerns CCPL – Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox Group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (Case AT.39563 – Retail food packaging), in so far as it requires the applicants to provide a financial guarantee or to make provisional payment of the fines imposed.

Operative part

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

Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure – Reliance on damage caused to the rights of third parties or to the general interest – Not permissible – Financial loss – Imminent disappearance from the market constituting damage that is irreparable and serious – Situation capable of jeopardising the existence of the party seeking the interim measure – Assessment in the light of the size and turnover of the applicant undertaking and the characteristics of the group to which it belongs (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156) (see paras 18-21, 24, 30, 35, 36)
Fundamental rights – Right to effective judicial protection – Review of legality of EU measures – Procedures – Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure

(Art. 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, 267 and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

(see paras 63-66)
2.

Officials – Remuneration – Weightings – Fixing – Retroactive update because of the late publication of purchase price data – No breach of the principle of equal treatment, duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and equivalence of purchasing power (Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 64 and Annex X, Art. 13) (see paras 72-75)
2.

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of being individually concerned by a general decision – Conditions – Council Decision approving the conclusion of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union – Action brought by UK nationals with family and property interests in the European Union – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Decision 2021/689) (see paras 29-32, 35-37)
25

In particular, in order to implement Article 14(1) of the basic regulation, under which definitive anti-dumping duties are to be collected by Member States, Article 101(1) of the 2013 Customs Code provides that ‘the amount of import or export duty payable shall be determined by the customs authorities responsible for the place where the customs debt is incurred’, without any exception for definitive anti-dumping duties being provided for in that regard. In addition, pursuant to Article 104(1) of that code, the customs authorities referred to in Article 101 are to enter in their accounts, in accordance with the national legislation, the amount of import or export duty payable as determined in accordance with that article. Lastly, Article 102 of the Customs Code provides, in paragraph 1, that the customs debt is to be notified to the debtor by the customs authorities in the form prescribed at the place where the customs debt is incurred, and states, in paragraph 2, that where the amount of duty payable is equal to the amount entered in the customs declaration, release of the goods by the customs authorities is to be equivalent to notifying the debtor of the customs debt.
16

As regards the substance, it should be recalled, as regards the representation before the Courts of the European Union of a party not covered by the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, that the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of that Statute, applicable to proceedings before the General Court in accordance with Article 56 of that Statute, lay down two separate and cumulative conditions, namely, the first, that parties not referred to in the first and second paragraphs of Article 19 must be represented by a lawyer, and, second, that only a lawyer authorised to practise before the courts or tribunals of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) may represent or assist a party in proceedings before the Courts of the European Union (see judgment of 24 March 2022, PJ and PC v EUIPO, C‑529/18 P and C‑531/18 P, EU:C:2022:218, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited, and order of 7 December 2021, Daimler v EUIPO – Volkswagen (IQ), T‑422/21, EU:T:2021:888, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
Order of the President of the General Court of 11 February 2022 –

Collard v Parliament and ID

(Case T‑53/22 R)

(Interim measures – Law governing the institutions – Member of the Parliament – Suspension and exclusion of a Member from his political group – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – Failure to comply with procedural requirements – Inadmissibility)

1. Interim relief – 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 (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 6-8)

2. Interim relief – Formal requirements – Submission of applications – Summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based – Insufficient explanation of the grounds constituting a prima facie case – General reference to other documents – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 76(d) and 156(5)) (see paras 9-12)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Obligation to provide concrete and precise information, supported by detailed documentary evidence – Need to provide a true overall picture of the situation – Lack of evidence – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 15-20)

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Interim relief – 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 14-17)
61989F0120

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Biancarelli delivered on 30 January 1991. - Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities. - ECSC - Non-contractual liability of the Community. - Case T-120/89.



European Court reports 1991 Page II-00279
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/29

Action brought on 1 October 2004 by Troy Chemical Company BV against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-404/04)

(2005/C 19/62)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 October 2004 by Troy Chemical Company BV, Maassluis, the Netherlands, represented by K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to respond to the applicant's request;

— Or, in the alternative, order the annulment of the European Commission's act D 341571(04);

— Order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 euro for damages suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under Community law by failing to respond to the applicant, or, in the alternative, as a result of the European Commission's act D 341571(04), as well as any applicable interests, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

— Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law invoked are similar to those invoked in Case T-400/04, Arch Chemicals and Arch Timber Protection/Commission.
—

grant the award of damages with (i) Aintérêts de retard@, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and (ii) other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of 10 000 euros per year;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 143/40

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-141/05)

(2005/C 143/75)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach v.d.H. (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005 by which it denied the applicant unrestricted access to the Commission's file in relation to Contract LIEN 97-2011;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested document the Commission denied the applicant unrestricted access to the European Commission's file relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 by reference to Article 4(1)(b) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and to the Data Protection Regulation (2).

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. The applicant is of the opinion that the reasons given by the European Commission for its refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file concerning Contract LIEN 97-2011, namely that unrestricted access to the file would impair the decision-making process, are invalid. The applicant further contends that there is public interest in the disclosure of the documents in question. The applicant also questions the applicability of Article 4(1)(b) of the Transparency Regulation.

The applicant complains furthermore of the refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file by reference to the Data Protection Regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the European Commission's action is arbitrary.

(1) 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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).