ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2008 – Antwerpse Bouwwerken v Commission

(Case T-195/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Public procurement – Community tendering procedure – Rejection of tender – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Admissibility – Interest in bringing proceedings – Loss of opportunity – No serious and irreparable damage – No urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – 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 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-19)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-39)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 43-44)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 47-48)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of being remedied by the granting of compensation in the main action (Arts 242 EC, 243 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-51)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company or irremediably alter its position in the market – Inclusion – Conditions (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC ; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 52-54)

7. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Decision to exclude a tenderer from a tender procedure – Damage to its reputation – Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 56-57)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in the context of the tendering procedure launched by the Commission for the construction of a building.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2009 – Intel v Commission

(Case T-457/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Application for suspension of operation and interim measures – Decision rejecting a request to defer the start of the period for the reply to a statement of objections – Decision rejecting a request to order the production of documents – Inadmissibility of the main action

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions of admissibility – Prima facie admissibility of the main action – Summary assessment of the main action by the court hearing the application for interim measures (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 46-48)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures in relation to certain measures taken in the context of the proceeding under Article 82 EC in Case COMP/3-37.990 Intel.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 – Artisjus v Commission

(Case T-411/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in relation to the collective management of copyright – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – ‘Prima facie case’ – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-37, 41, 58)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Articles 3 and 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC) in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 – infeurope v Commission

(Case T-176/08)

Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages – Public service contracts – Call for tenders concerning the maintenance of OHIM’s computer systems – Administrative appeal before the Commission – Implied Commission decision to dismiss – New claims – Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages – Manifest inadmissibility

1. Actions for failure to act – Failure to act – Definition – Administrative action against a measure of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in the context of the awarding of public contracts – Implied rejection decision by the Commission – Not included – Action for failure to act inadmissible (Art. 232 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 118) (see paras 36-40)

2. Procedure – Subject-matter of the dispute – Alteration once proceedings have been started (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 48(2)) (see para. 42)

3. Actions for damages – Autonomy in relation to action for annulment and action for failure to act – Manifest inadmissibility of actions for annulment and for failure to act – Compensation claim closely linked to the action for a declaration of failure to act – Inadmissibility (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 46-48)

Re:

First, application for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts under the tendering procedure AO/042/05 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for software maintenance relating to OHIM core business systems on trade marks and designs, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, application for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 2 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, application for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. infeurope is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

3. It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene submitted by European Dynamics SA.

4. infeurope, the Commission and European Dynamics are ordered to bear their own costs in connection with the application to intervene.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 1 April 2009 – Perry v Commission

(Case T-280/08)

Action for damages – Limitation period – Inadmissibility

Actions for damages – Limitation period – Point from which time starts to run – Liability as the result of an individual measure – Date on which the injurious effects of the measure are produced (Art. 288, second para., EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 46 and 53, first para.) (see paras 34-39, 47-52)

Re:

APPLICATION for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of allegations of misuse of Community subsidies in the performance of certain contracts concluded by the Commission with the applicant’s companies.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 – Eriksen v Commission

(Case T-516/08)

Action for damages – Public health implications of the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland) – Directive 96/29/Euratom – Commission’s failure to adopt measures against a Member State – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

1. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of those conditions lacking – Action dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC; Art. 188, second para., EA) (see para. 24)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Commission not initiating a proceeding for failure to fulfil obligations – Not constituting unlawfulness (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC; Art. 141 EA) (see paras 29-30)

Re:

ACTION for compensation for damage suffered as a result of the Commission’s alleged failure to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the Kingdom of Denmark adopted the legislative and administrative provisions enabling it to comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) and applied those provisions to workers involved in the nuclear accident at Thule (Greenland).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2009 – Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission

(Case T-2/08)

Action for annulment – State aid – Not individually concerned – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Action brought by an authority forming an integral part of the State, not having budgetary independence and subject to State control – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 31, 38, 42)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/708/EC of 23 October 2007 on the State aid C 34/06 (ex N 29/05, ex CP 13/04) which the Federal Republic of Germany is planning to implement for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in North Rhine-Westphalia (OJ 2008 L 236, p. 10).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.
59

Fourthly, Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (JO 1958, 17, p. 385), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 adapting certain regulations and decisions in the fields of free movement of goods, freedom of movement for persons, company law, competition policy, agriculture, food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, transport policy, energy, taxation, statistics, trans-European networks, judiciary and fundamental rights, justice, freedom and security, environment, customs union, external relations, foreign, security and defence policy and institutions, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1), lists Bulgarian, Croatian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, German, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish and Swedish not only as official languages but also as working languages of the EU institutions (judgment of 16 October 2013 in Italy v Commission, T‑248/10, EU:T:2013:534, paragraph 29). Moreover, although Article 6 of Regulation No 1 provides that the institutions may determine the detailed rules of application of the language rules in their domestic legislation, Cedefop does not allege that such detailed rules would have been applicable to it and that they justify reimbursement of translation costs in the present case (see, to that effect and by way of analogy, judgment in Italy v Commission, EU:T:2013:534, paragraph 38).
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Insula v Commission

(Case T-246/09 R)

‛Application for interim measures — Debit notes — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to comply with formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 5, 7)

2. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44 and 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 8-9, 12, 14)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-30)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of two debit notes requiring the repayment of sums of money paid to the applicant under subsidy contracts.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Application for interim measures – Identification of the defendant (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)) (see paras 16-17)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 256(1) TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 27-29)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Burden of proof (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 31-33)

4. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the company belongs – Application to a natural person exercising control over that company (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 10 July 2009 terminating the applicant’s participation in two Community projects and the debit notes issued on 7 August 2009 by which the Commission claimed repayment of sums paid pursuant to Community projects in which the applicant participated.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The European Commission shall be regarded as the sole defendant.

2. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

3. The costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Request which has become devoid of purpose

–

No need to adjudicate (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art.104(2)) (see paras 3-4

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for an interim measure requiring the Commission to pay the applicant sums to support initiatives to promote the right of handicapped persons to equality and non-discrimination in professional life.

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

2. The applicant shall bear his own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Conditions for granting

–

Application for further extension of a measure suspending operation of a decision not to include an active substance in Annex I to Directive 91/414

–

Continuance of the circumstances which justified the granting of the measure

–

Duration of the extension

–

Limits (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 15-20

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for the extension of the suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2008/902/EC of 7 November 2008 concerning the non-inclusion of napropamide in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2008 L 326, p. 35).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The suspension of operation granted in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the order of the President of the Court of 28 April 2009 in Case T‑95/09 R United Phosphorus v Commission (not published in the ECR) is extended until 31 December 2011 or until the date of adoption of the decision in the main proceedings at the latest, if that decision is adopted earlier.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment

–

Jurisdiction of the Community judicature

–

Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution

–

Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 29-32

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION that the Commission be required, first, to indicate to the applicant, by granting it access to the file of the procedure in Case COMP/39.406 (Marine hoses) and in particular by making available a copy of the Commission’s decision of 28 January 2009 imposing a fine, if the applicant is mentioned by name in that decision and, if so, to state the context in which its name is mentioned, second, to remove, in a manner to be specified after the granting of access to the file, the mention of its name in the Commission's decision of 28 January 2009 and, third, not to mention it by name and refrain from making any reference to its name in the non-confidential version of the decision of 28 January 2009.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Z is ordered to pay the costs, including those of the procedure for interim measures.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Community institution – Commission delegation – Not included – Action against the delegation for failure to act – Inadmissibility (Art. 20 EU) (see paras 70-71)

2. Actions for failure to act – Institution called upon to act – Conditions – Clear and express request (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 84-85)

3. Actions for failure to act – Time-limits – Mandatory – Action brought late – Claim barred by lapse of time (Art. 232, second para., EC) (see paras 92-94)

4. Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Limits – Jurisdiction to rule on rights under contracts with a view to securing their performance – Not included (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para, EC) (see para. 116)

5. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – One of the conditions not satisfied – Claim for compensation dismissed in its entirety (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 117-118)

6. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Burden of proof (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 120-122)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION firstly, for a declaration that the European Commission and the EU Delegation to the Kingdom of Morocco have failed to act and secondly, for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of, inter alia, that failure to act.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law.

2. Technoprocess Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Commission to address a recommendation to the Council concerning suspension of Community aid to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Art. 232, third para., EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1638/2006, Art. 28) (see paras 46-50)

2. Actions for failure to act – Natural or legal persons – Actionable omissions – Omission by the Council to request the Commission to submit to it a proposal for measures concerning assistance given to a non-member State – Inadmissibility (Arts 208 EC and 232, third para., EC) (see paras 54-55)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution – Inadmissibility (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 59)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Unlawfulness – Damage – Causal link – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – Wide discretion of the Council and the Commission in managing the external policy of the Union – No grant of rights to individuals (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 66-73)

5. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Conditions – Provision constituting a clear and precise obligation, not subject to the intervention of a subsequent measure – Article 86 of the Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon – No direct effect (Art. 300(7) EC; Association Agreement between the EC and the Republic of Lebanon, Art. 86) (see paras 73-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully failed to act on the applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of its alleged infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and (ii) for compensation for damage claimed to have been suffered by the applicant in consequence of the Council’s and the Commission’s inaction.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mr Muhamad Mugraby is ordered to pay the costs.