ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 2 September 2009 – E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON Földgáz Trade v Commission

(Case T-57/07)

Action for annulment – Competition – Concentrations – Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market – Commitments – Commission letters regarding the commitments – Non-actionable measures – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Letter from an institution – Letter limited to providing an interpretation of a legislative text – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 30-51)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decisions allegedly contained in the Commission’s letters of 19 December 2006 and 16 January 2007 concerning the commitments entered into by E.ON Ruhrgas International AG referred to in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3696 – E.ON/MOL).

Operative part

1. The action as dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 17 December 2008 – Portela v Commission

(Case T-137/07)

Non-contractual liability – Marketing of defective digital thermometers bearing the marking ‘CE’ – Failure to act on the part of the Commission – Causal connection – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law

1. Actions for damages – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see para 46)

2. Actions for damages – Autonomous form of action (Arts 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 49-50)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see paras 79-81)

Re:

CLAIM requesting that the Court of First Instance should impose on the Commission the obligation to act in accordance with Article 14b of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 98/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 1998 on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (OJ 1998 L 331, p. 1), by ordering the certification company TÜV Rheinland Product Safety GmbH, through the Federal Republic of Germany, to activate, in favour of the applicant, the mandatory civil liability insurance provided for in point 6 of Annex XI to Directive 93/42, which that company took out, and, if the alleged damage cannot be remedied by the principal claim, in the alternative, a claim for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant on account of the various omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures

–

Suspension of operation of a measure

–

Interim measures

–

Conditions for granting

–

Urgency

–

Arguments substantially the same as those submitted in an earlier case

–

Reference to the grounds for the previous decision

–

No urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 6-7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of a procurement notice issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus in the field of livestock rearing.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility– Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-21)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 44-46)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 48, 50-54)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 – Discretion of the judge dealing with 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 19-20)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Interest of the applicant in obtaining suspension – Negative administrative decision – No interest (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

3. Application for interim measures – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Direction to the Commission to extend or renew the authorisation of a body enabling it to inspect vessels and issue maritime safety certificates in the name of the Member State – Measure incompatible with the allocation of powers between institutions – Rejection (Arts 233 EC and 243 EC; Council Directive 94/57) (see paras 28-29)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission withdrawing the recognition granted to the applicant by Commission Decision 2005/623/EC of 3 August 2005 on the extension of the limited recognition of the Hellenic Register of Shipping (Ellinikos Niognomon AE) (OJ 2005 L 219, p. 43).

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2009 — CHEMK and KF v Council and Commission

(Case T-190/08)

‛Actions for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Partial inadmissibility — Intervention’

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Measure requiring notification — Calculation — Exceeding of the time-limit — Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fifth para., EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 101(1) and 102(2)) (see paras 19-23)

2. Procedure — Intervention — Party not being capable of being regarded as defendant due to the late introduction of its action for annulment — Lawfulness (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 115 and 116) (see paras 24-26)

Re:

ACTION for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6) and, in the alternative, annulment of the decision of the Commission of rejecting the applicants’ request that the anti-dumping duty be suspended.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission decision of 28 February 2008 rejecting the request of Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) for suspension of anti-dumping duties.

2. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in Case T-190/08 in support of the form of order sought by the Council.

3. The Registrar shall send to the Commission a copy of every document served on the parties.

4. A period shall be prescribed within which the Commission may submit a statement in intervention.

5. The decision on the application for measures of organisation of procedure and for measures of inquiry is reserved.
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 – 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 21-24)

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 34-37, 40)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) of Decision C(2008) 3435 final of the Commission of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC), to the extent that the applicant is affected.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;

2. Reserves the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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 50, 92-93)

2. Non-contractual liability – Conditions – Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals – Discretion of the institution when adopting the measure – Need to be taken into consideration when examining liability (Art. 288, second para., EC) (see para. 72)

3. State aid – General aid scheme approved by the Commission – Identification of individual aids falling within the temporal scope of that scheme – Date of the legally binding measure requiring the competent national authority to grant the aid – Strict interpretation of derogations from the prohibition of State aid precluding the extension of the temporal scope of an approved aid scheme (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 76-78)

4. State aid – Commission decision not to raise objections to an aid scheme – Limitation of the temporal effects of the decision – Breach of principle of the protection of legitimate expectations – None – Breach of principle of equal treatment – None (Art. 87 EC) (see paras 84, 88)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for non-contractual liability seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s adopting the decision of 12 July 2000 not to raise objections to a State aid scheme in the form of aid for investment in disadvantaged regions of Italy (Aid No 715/99 – Italy (SG 2000 D/105754) and by reason of the Commission’s conduct prior to the adoption of that decision.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Nuova Agricast Srl is ordered to pay the costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Identification of the parties to the dispute – Application to replace the applicant with a sister company not being a successor to the applicant’s whole legal position – Inadmissible (see paras 27-28)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural and legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision, addressed to Member States, establishing a common framework for the selection and authorisation of operators of mobile systems by satellite – Action by an operator – Decision not producing direct effects on the said operator’s legal position – Not directly concerned – Inadmissible (Art. 230, fourth para., EC) (see paras 55-65)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Need for natural or legal persons to have recourse to a plea of illegality or a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity – Availability of an action for annulment before the Community Court in the event of an insurmountable obstacle at the level of national procedural rules – Not included (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 67-68)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. ICO Services Ltd is ordered to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union.

3. The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 – Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-122/08 R)

Application for interim relief – Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus – Application for suspension of operation of the notice – No urgency

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Arguments substantially the same as those submitted in an earlier case – Reference to the grounds for the previous decision – No urgency (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 6-7)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of a procurement notice issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus, concerning the establishment of a programme management unit to support the implementation of investment projects in the field of water, waste water and solid waste.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim relief;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2009 – Ziegler v Commission

(Case T-199/08 R)

Interim measures – Competition – Payment of a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for stay of execution – Lack of urgency

1. Application for interim measures – Conditions of admissibility– Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-21)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 44-46)

3. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Suspension of operation of the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for not proceeding to immediate recovery of a fine imposed for breach of the competition rules – Conditions for granting (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 48, 50-54)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 on a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 – International Removal Services).

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2008 – Melli Bank v Council

(Case T-332/08 R)

Application for interim measures – Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 – Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran – Council decision – Measure to freeze funds and economic resources – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No urgency – Absence of serious and irreparable damage

Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 12-19)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the application of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29), in so far as Melli Bank plc is included in the list of legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application for interim measures;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)

22 June 2009

Case T-376/08 P

Bart Nijs

v

Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Appeal – Civil Service – Officials – Evaluation report for 2005/2006 – Decision not to promote the appellant in 2007 – Decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General – Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

Appeal: brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 in Case F‑1/08 Nijs v Court of Auditors [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II‑A-1-0000 seeking that that order be set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Bart Nijs is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Court of Auditors of the European Communities in the present proceedings.

Summary

Appeals – Statement of pleas in law and legal arguments in the application – Plea not sufficiently clear – Reference to all the annexes – Inadmissibility

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 138(1)(c))

In an appeal before the Court of First Instance against a decision of the Civil Service Tribunal, a general reference to documents other than the appeal cannot make up for the absence of essential elements of the legal arguments which must be included in the appeal pursuant to Article 138(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. Furthermore, it is not a matter for the Court to seek and identify, in the annexes, pleas in law and arguments which it might deem to constitute the basis of the action, since the annexes have a purely evidential and instrumental function.

(see para. 24)

See: T‑154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II‑1703, para. 49; T‑209/01 Honeywell v Commission [2005] ECR II‑5527, para. 57
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 8 October 2008 – Koinotita Grammatikou v Commission

(Case T-13/08)

Action for annulment – Cohesion Fund – Lack of direct concern – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned – Commission decision granting a Member State, under the Cohesion Fund, financial assistance for the construction of a landfill site (Art. 230, para. 4, EC) (see paras 25-30)

Re:

ANNULMENT of Commission Decision C(2004) 5509 of 21 December 2004 relating to the grant of assistance from the Cohesion Fund for the project ‘Construction of a Landfill Site at the Integrated Waste Management Facility of North-East Attica at the location “Mavro Vouno Grammatikou”’.

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 30 November 2009 – Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-313/08 to T-318/08 and T-320/08 to T-328/08)

Application for annulment – Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 – Recovery of bluefin tuna stock – Fixing the TAC for 2008 – Measure of general application – Lack of individual concern – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing – Measure of general scope – Action by owners of vessels authorised to fish for red tuna – Applicants not individually concerned – Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 36-41, 45-48)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Interpretation, contrary to law, of the requirement of being individually concerned – Not permissible (Arts 230, fourth para., EC, 234 EC and 241 EC) (see para. 49)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45° W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9).

Operative part

1. The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 September 2009 – LPN v Commission

(Case T-186/08)

Action for annulment and damages – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Decision to take no further action on a complaint – Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Manifest inadmissibility – No need to adjudicate

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures (Arts 226 EC, 228 EC and 230 EC) (see paras 49-51)

2. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings (see paras 58-59)

3. Non-contractual liability – Conditions (Arts 226 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 65-66)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 February 2008, as referred to in the Commission’s letter of 3 April 2008, addressed to the applicant under reference ENV.A.2/MAS/mm/D (2008) 5542, by which the Commission declared its intention to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint regarding the alleged incompatibility of construction of a dam on the River Sabor (Portugal) with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) (complaint No 2003/4523 – ‘Baixa Sabor’ dam project) and (ii) an alleged implied decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents, and an application for compensation.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of an alleged implied decision refusing access to documents under Article 8(3) 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.

2. The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.