ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 July 2011 – Emme v Commission

(Case T-422/10 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application to suspend the operation of a measure – Financial loss – No exceptional circumstances – No 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 11-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Risk of insolvency (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-18)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of the obligation to constitute a bank guarantee as a condition for not requiring immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting – Exceptional circumstances – Whether account to be taken of the situation of the group to which the undertaking belongs and of its shareholders (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 22-37)

Re:

APPLICATION to suspend the operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 – Prestressing steel) and to dispense the applicant from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee so as to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed under Article 2 of that decision.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2011 – Noko Ngele v Commission and Others

(Case T-15/10)

Non-contractual liability – Action brought in part before a court which has no jurisdiction – Action inadmissible in part – Absence of causal link – Action in part manifestly devoid of any basis in law – Articles 111 and 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court

1. Procedure – Action by one natural or legal person against other natural or legal persons or seeking to challenge decisions of national courts or the conduct of a Member State – Lack of jurisdiction of the EU judicature (Arts 256 TFEU, 268 TFEU and 340, second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51 and Annex I, Art. 1) (see paras 37-41)

2. Procedure – Action for a declaration of the position of the General Court – Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court (Art. 256 TFEU) (see paras 42-43)

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 para., TFEU) (see paras 44-45)

4. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Causal link – Concept – Conduct of the applicant constituting the cause of the alleged damage – Conduct complained of not attributable to the defendant institution – No causal link – Action manifestly devoid of legal foundation (Art. 340, second para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 111) (see paras 52-58, 65-66)

5. Procedure – Conditions for admissibility of actions – Pleas seeking declaration of enforceability of the judgment to be delivered by the General Court – Action devoid of purpose – Inadmissibility (Arts 280 TFEU and 299 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 60) (see paras 75-76)

Re:

ACTION for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the impossibility of pursuing recovery of a debt owed to him and the non‑material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of criminal proceedings instigated against him in Belgium.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it, in so far as it is directed against AT, AU, AV and AW.

2. Mr Mariyus Noko Ngele’s head of claim seeking from the Court a declaration that the Centre pour le développement des entreprises (CDE) never replaced the Centre pour le développement industriel (CDI) and that the CDE does not exist in law or have legal personality in Belgium is dismissed on the basis that it is made before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.

3. Mr Noko Ngele’s claim that the Court should order that the judgment to be delivered is enforceable is rejected as inadmissible.

4. The action is dismissed as to the remainder as manifestly devoid of any basis in law.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Stichting Woonpunt and Others v Commission

(Case T-203/10)

State aid – Scheme of aid granted by the Netherlands to housing corporations – Existing aid – Decision accepting Member State’s commitments – Decision declaring new aid compatible – Action for annulment – Not individually concerned – No interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring modifications to an existing aid scheme concerning the general system of financing housing corporations compatible with the internal market – Access to the aid scheme opened on the basis of objective criteria and without limitation as to the number of potential beneficiaries – Action of a company eligible for that scheme – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 25-26, 28-30, 34-35, 42)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action by a potential beneficiary company of duly notified State aid brought against the Commission decision declaring it incompatible with the internal market under certain restrictive conditions – Beneficiaries of new aid not able to invoke unfavourable legal effects in relation to a previous situation – Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 55, 58)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 (Netherlands) – Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of Vesteda Groep BV and the Netherlands Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed.

3. Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen and Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 – Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission

(Case T-225/10)

Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme allowing the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Action by an undertaking having benefited from an individual aid granted under that scheme but not subject to a repayment obligation — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 22-23)

2. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Capacity as beneficiary of the aid scheme — Absence — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Commission Decision 2011/5) (see paras 26-27)

3. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme — Individual concern — Criteria — Capacity as party to the administrative procedure — No clearly defined position as a negotiator — Inadmissibility (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 28-31)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2011/5/EC of 28 October 2009 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 48).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

27 October 2017 ( *1 )

(Rectification)

In Case T‑119/10,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented initially by Y. de Vries, J. Langer and C. Wissels, and subsequently by J. Langer and M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, acting as Agents,

applicant,

supported by

Kingdom of Belgium, represented initially by M. Jacobs and T. Materne, and subsequently by M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents,

and by

French Republic, represented initially by G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, and subsequently by J. Bousin and D. Colas, acting as Agents,

interveners,

v

European Commission, represented by W. Roels and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents,

defendant,

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 on the reduction in the financial assistance granted to the Rhine-Meuse flood protection programme under Community initiative programme Interreg II/C in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008),

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of D. Gratsias, President, I. Labucka (Rapporteur) and I. Ulloa Rubio, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1 On 13 September 2017, the General Court delivered the order in, Netherlands v Commission (T‑119/10, EU:T:2017:622).

2 By letter received at the Registry of the General Court on 15 September 2017, the defendant requested the Court to correct a clerical error in the names of the Agents of the Commission in the introductory part of that order.

3 In accordance with Article 164(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is necessary to rectify a clerical error in the introductory part of the order in the name of one of the Agents of the European Commission.

On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

hereby orders:

The introductive part of the order of 13 September 2017 should read ‘European Commission, represented by W. Roels and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents’ instead of ‘European Commission, represented by R. Wim and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents’.

Luxembourg, 27 October 2017.

E. Coulon Registrar D. Gratsias President

( *1 ) Language of the case: Dutch.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 11-12)

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 16-17)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss capable of full remedy in an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character – Uncertainty as to reparation of the damage in context of such an action – No effect (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 20-22)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Damage arising from a request for information of the Commission based on Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 concerning sensitive data of the undertaking – None (Arts 101 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 278 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 18(4)) (see paras 24-28)

5. 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 30-31)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2011) 2361 final of 30 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

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is rejected.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Matter of public policy – Examination by the EU judicature of its own motion (Art. 263, sixth para., TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 102(1) and (2)) (see paras 11-12)

2. Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Starting point – Publication date of the measure in question (Arts 263, fourth and sixth paras, TFEU and 275, second para., TFEU; Council Regulation No 560/2005; Council Decision 2010/656) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Decision 2010/656 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation No 560/2005 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Mrs Akisi Danièle Boni-Claverie is ordered to bear her own costs.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for accelerated procedure and priority judgment.
Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 – Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission

(Case T-402/11 R)

Application for interim measures – Claim for remission of import duties of some food products – Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities – Applications for interim measures – Inadmissibility – No urgency

1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for admissibility – Interest of the applicant in obtaining the suspension sought – Action for suspension of operation of a measure already implemented – Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-13)

2. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief – Issuing of directions to third parties – Limits (Arts 256 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 14)

3. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18, 21)

4. Applications for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – National measures for implementing customs debt – National rights of action – Effect – No urgency by reason of the need, under the terms of the contested measure, for an additional intervention of the national authorities applying substantive EU customs law (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 2913/92; Commission Regulation No 2454/93, Art. 871(6)) (see paras 22-25)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures, including suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission of 29 June 2011 informing the applicant of the reference to the Spanish authorities of the documents in the case relating to its claim for remission of import duties, so that those authorities can rule on that claim.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements

–

Conditions relating to a signatory

–

Third party capacity in relation to the parties

–

Application signed by an internal lawyer of a group company

–

Inadmissibility (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19 and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 43(1), first para.) (see paras 13, 15, 18-19

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 February 2011 (Case R 665/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Farmodiética – Cosmética, Dietética e Produtos Farmacêuticos, L da and Glaxo Group Ltd.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Glaxo Group Ltd is ordered pay the costs.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT

8 November 2012

Case T‑616/11 P

Luigi Marcuccio

v

European Commission

(Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant — Reimbursement of avoidable costs — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

Appeal: against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2011 in Case F‑69/10 Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC seeking to have that order set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Luigi Marcuccio is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

Summary

1. Officials — Non-contractual liability of the institutions — Conditions — Unlawfulness — Damage — Causal link — Decision vitiated by a breach of the right to confidentiality — Not a sufficient condition for the Union to incur non-contractual liability — Actual fact of damage and causal link — Burden of proof

(Art. 340, second para., TFEU)

2. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Invalid plea in law

3. Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea against the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision as to costs — Inadmissible if all other pleas are rejected

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(2))

1. The Union incurs non-contractual liability only if a series of cumulative conditions are met as regards the unlawfulness of the acts alleged against the defendant institution, the actual fact of the alleged damage and the existence of a causal link between the contested acts and the damage complained of.

The fact that a decision of an institution is vitiated by an illegality such as a breach of the right to confidentiality is not a sufficient condition for the Union to incur non-contractual liability for unlawful acts of its bodies, since for such liability to be incurred the appellant must have been able to prove the actual fact of the damage he claims and the causal link between that damage and the illegality complained of.

(see paras 36-37, 41)

See:

T‑46/08 P Marcuccio v Commission [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-77 and II‑B‑1-479, paras 66 and 67 and the case-law cited therein; judgment of 6 July 2010 in T‑401/09 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 26; T‑143/09 P Commission v Petrilli [2010] ECR-SC, para. 45 and the case-law cited therein

2. See the text of the decision.

(see para. 44)

See:

C‑496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I‑3801, para. 68 and the case-law cited therein

3. See the text of the decision.

(see paras 47, 52)

See:

T‑375/08 P Nijs v Court of Auditors [2009] ECR-SC I‑B‑1-65 and II‑B‑1-413, para. 71 and the case-law cited therein; order of 20 October 2010 in T‑515/09 P Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 59; T‑256/10 P Marcuccio v Commission [2011] ECR-SC, para. 77
An act, such as a Commission decision prohibiting a sectoral aid scheme, cannot be classified as a regulatory act not entailing implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

Under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU, such a decision is binding in its entirety only on those to whom it is addressed. Consequently, the obligation to refuse to grant the advantage of the scheme at issue, to annul the tax advantages conferred and to recover any aid paid under that scheme are legal consequences of the contested decision that are binding on the Member State, to which that decision is addressed.

By contrast, the contested decision does not produce such legal effects vis-à-vis the beneficiaries of the scheme at issue, since the declaration of incompatibility does not in itself entail any prohibition or obligation for those beneficiaries. As the effect of the incompatibility is not necessarily the same for each of the beneficiaries of the scheme at issue, the consequences of the incompatibility must be individually itemised by a legal act emanating from the competent national authorities, such as a tax notice, which constitutes an implementing measure within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

It is immaterial in this regard whether the Member State has no discretion in implementing the contested decision. The lack of discretion is a criterion which must, it is true, be examined in order to determine whether the applicant is directly concerned. However, the requirement of an act which does not entail implementing measures, laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, constitutes a different condition to the requirement that the act be of direct concern to the applicant.

(see paras 45-48)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2012 — L’Oréal v OHIM — United Global Media Group (MyBeauty TV)

(Case T-240/11)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Costs recoverable before OHIM — Costs of being represented by an employee — Article 85(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law’

Community trade mark — Procedural provisions — Allocation of costs — Criteria (Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 85(1)) (see paras 13-17)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 898/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between United Global Media Group, Inc. and L’Oréal.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
2.

Bimbo SA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).