ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 8 December 2021 –

Rooken and Others v Parliament

(Case T‑723/21 R)

(Application for interim measures – Members of Parliament – Conditions of access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work in connection with the health crisis – Application for suspension of operation of a measure – No 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 – Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief – Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 256(1), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 8-11)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 14)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Purely hypothetical damage based on the occurrence of future and uncertain events – Insufficient to demonstrate urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 26)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Risk of fundamental rights being undermined – Risk not in itself constituting serious damage – Burden of proof borne by the party seeking the interim measure – Particularly serious nature of the prima facie case – Irrelevant (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 30)

5. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Need to plead the risk of suffering that damage personally (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU) (see paras 36, 41)

6. 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 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 40)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the suspension of operation of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on the exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the Parliament’s buildings at its three places of work.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;

2. The order of 15 November 2021, Rooken and Others v Parliament (T‑723/21 R), is set aside;
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 19-22)
Judicial proceedings — Third party proceedings — Admissibility criteria — Third party — Non-participation of the third party in the main proceedings — Scope — Status of the third party to participate in the main proceeding — None — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40)

(see paras 31-34)
C 355/28 EN 9.12.2000 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Hotel Cipriani va San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano
s.c.r.l. and Others, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the against Commission of the European Communities
Venice Bar.
(Case T-254/00)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
(2000/C 355/61)
— annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs. (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-Pleas in law and main argumentsties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by HotelCipriani, represented by Marina Marinoni, of the Venice Bar, The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
and Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Naples Bar. Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (
1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:(1) Not yet published.
— annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC;
— in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia Pleas in law and main arguments
Generale delle Acque against Commission of the Euro-
pean CommunitiesThe pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della
(Case T-264/00) Carità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess Sociale
and Others v Commission (1).
(2000/C 355/63)
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 87(1) and 3(c)
and (d) of the Treaty, and breach of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment in the decision to recover (Language of the case: Italian)
the aid in question.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the (1) Not yet published.
European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
Generale delle Acque, represented by Alfredo Biagini, Andrea
Bortoluzzi and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Cooperativa
San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano— order the Commission to pay the costs.s.c.r.l. and Others against Commission of the European
Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments(Case T-260/00, T-261/00, T-262/00 e T-263/00)
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in(2000/C 355/62)Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
(Language of the case: Italian)
(1) Not yet published.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Cooperati-
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/40

Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission

(Case T-444/05)

(2006/C 48/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Navigazione Libera del Golfo (NLG) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: Salvatore Ravenna, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2005 refusing access to data and information concerning the extra costs arising as a result of PSO (public service obligations) and payments to offset those costs in respect of the services carried out by Caremar SpA on the Naples Beverello-Capri route;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-109/05 Navigazione Libera del Golfo v Commission. (1)

It should, however, be stated that the contested decision in Case T-109/05 is based on Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, whereas the decision at issue in this case is based on Article 4(4) and (5) of that regulation. Accordingly, it was not Caremar that was consulted, as ‘third party author’ of the documents/data to which access was requested, but rather it was the Italian authorities, which did not issue the documents of the case and had no concerns relating to commercial interests, that were consulted.

Further, that consultation was carried out in an artificial manner, given that the Member States have exclusive competence together with a right of veto which is binding on the Commission.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2005, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 229/28

Action brought on 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-260/05)

(2005/C 229/60)

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 14 July 2005 by Peter Strobl, residing in Greifenberg-Beuern (Germany), represented by H.-J. Rüber, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of the Commission of 7 October 2004 with regard to the inclusion of the applicant in grade A*6;

2. declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*10;

3. in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*8;

4. in the alternative, declare that the appointment must be made at grade A*7;

5. order the Commission to place the applicant in the financial position he would be in if he had been correctly classified, i.e. pay the difference;

6. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests his appointment at grade A*6 upon recruitment by the defendant in October 2004.

The applicant bases his claim on three grounds. Firstly, he submits that there is infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation. In the applicant's view, the notice itself, the procedure followed on similar notices and the rules of the old Staff Regulations in force at the time of the notice raised in the applicant the well-founded expectation that, were he to be recruited, it would be at grade A7/A6 or their equivalent under the new Staff Regulations, namely grades A*8 or A*10 in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII. His recruitment at grade A*6 on the basis of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations was unlawful. The consequence to the applicant of the application of the new Staff Regulations by the Appointing Authority is an infringement of the general requirement of transparency, fails to satisfy the requirement of certainty and does not comply with the principle that measures should not be retroactive.

As the second ground of his complaint, the applicant submits that there is discrimination against him because of his age. His classification at grade A*6 ought to have been made without any reference to the age of the applicant.

Finally, the applicant submits that application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations leads to inequality of treatment of the applicant in comparison with colleagues from other selection competitions and in other job placements who are placed in a higher grade.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/24

Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin v Commission

(Case T-356/06)

(2007/C 20/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Claimant: Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin NV (represented by: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and Y. de Vries, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— set aside Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it is addressed to Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin;

— order the Commission to pay its own costs and also those of Koninklijke Volker Wessels Stevin.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), which imposed a fine on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.

In support of its action, the claimant invokes a breach of Article 81 EC and of Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. According to the claimant, the Commission applied an incorrect standard for the purpose of determining the liability of a parent company and in so doing wrongly concluded that the claimant was principally liable for the alleged conduct of Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin B.V.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 261/22

Action brought on 28 August 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-232/06)

(2006/C 261/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of DG TAXUD to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

— order DG TAXUD to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected;

— order DG TAXUD to pay applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of DG TAXUD's decision of 19 June 2006, rejecting its bid filed in response to the open Call for Tenders TAXUD/2005/AO-001 for specification, development, maintenance and support of customs IT services relating to projects of the DG-TAXUD ‘CUST-DEV’ (OJ 2005/S 117-115222) and awarding the same Call for Tender to another bidder.

In support of its claims the applicant puts forward that, in the framework of the said tendering procedure, DG TAXUD failed to respect the procedural requirements set out in the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules, thus resulting in unequal treatment of tenderers and violation of principles of transparency and sound administration. Moreover, DG TAXUD's decision allegedly contained manifest errors of assessment and according to the applicant, by far exceeded the discretion that European Institutions dispose of when evaluating tenders.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/29

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — FRA.BO v Commission

(Case T-381/06)

(2007/C 42/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: FRA.BO SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Celli and F. Distefano, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision of 20 September 2006 (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings — C(2006) 4180 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC, insofar as it relates to the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant;

— reduce the fine imposed on the applicant under the Court's jurisdiction; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by fixing prices, agreeing on price lists, agreeing on discounts and rebates, agreeing on implementation mechanisms for introducing price increases, allocating national markets, allocating customers and exchanging other commercial information.

The applicant challenges the contested decision on the following grounds:

— The applicant claims, first, that the Commission made a manifest error of appreciation and breached fundamental principles of law in making an improper and unlawful application of the principles of the 2002 Leniency Notice (1).

— The applicant further claims, that the Commission made a manifest error of appreciation by granting FRA.BO a disproportionately low reduction of 20 per cent under the 1996 Leniency Notice, and infringed the fundamental principles of proportionality, legitimate expectations and duty to state reasons.

(1) Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 20/16

Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission

(Case T-343/06)

(2007/C 20/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, The Netherlands), The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler, S. Verschuur, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd request the Court:

— To annul, in full, Commission's Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, hereinafter, 'the decision') insofar as it is addressed to Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd; or in the alternative

— to annul, in part, the decision, insofar as it finds that Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd infringed Article 81 EC between 1 April 1994 and 19 February 1996 and to reduce the fine imposed upon them; and

— in any event, to reduce the fine imposed on Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd pursuant to the decision;

— to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd associated with payment in whole or in part of the fine or constituting a bank guarantee;

— take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV requests the Court:

— to annul, in part, the decision insofar as it finds that Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV infringed Article 81 EC between 1 April 1994 and 19 February 1996 and to reduce the fine imposed upon it; and

— in any event, to reduce the fine imposed on Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV pursuant to the decision;

— to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by Shell Verkoopmaatschappij BV associated with payment in whole or in part of the fine or constituting a bank guarantee;

— take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants argue that the following elements of the decision are based on errors of law and errors of assessment:

(a) the finding that Shell Verkoopmaatschappij BV was an instigator and leader of the cartel;

(b) the attribution of liability for the infringement to The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd and Shell Petroleum NV;

(c) the increase in the fine for repeated infringement;

(d) the calculation of the starting amount for Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 82/52

Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Vtesse Networks v Commission

(Case T-54/07)

(2007/C 82/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd. (St. Albans, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 1 of the decision insofar as it determined that the application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic property to BT plc from 1995 to the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

— order the Commission to pay Vtesse's costs of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/951/EC (1) of 12 October 2006 finding that the application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic property to BT plc and Kingston Communications plc from 1995 until the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to consider and/or to investigate the competitive disadvantage suffered by the applicant vis-à-vis BT plc at the margin when bidding alongside BT plc for contracts with customers for high capacity retail leased lines using optical fibres.

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in the application of Article 87(1) EC in particular by failing to define the relevant market and thereby failing to identify the advantage in fact granted by business rates to BT plc in relation to competition at the margin.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal of the significance and relevance of the class of contracts where the applicant competed with BT plc and failed to investigate sufficiently the facts of competition at the margin leading to the Commission's reliance on a market share for BT plc of 12 % when the most relevant market share for BT plc was, according to the applicant, 78 %.

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission did not sufficiently reason the contested decision with regard to the competition actually occurring between the applicant and BT plc.

(1) Commission Decision of 12 October 2006 — the United Kingdom's application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunications infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C 4/2005 (ex NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004) — notified under document number C(2006) 4378) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/28

Action brought on 26 April 2007 — Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe and Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK v Commission

(Case T-140/07)

(2007/C 155/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Chi Mei Optoelectronics Europe BV (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands), Chi Mei Optoelectronics UK Ltd (Havant, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicants respectfully ask the Court to

— annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application the applicants seek annulment of Commission Decision C (2007)546 of 15 February 2007 on the basis of which the Commission, has compelled the applicants, pursuant to Article 18(3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 (1), to provide specific information and documents related to practices under investigation in Case COMP/F/39309 — Thin Films Transistors Liquid Crystal Displays.

The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful in that the Commission lacks the investigative and enforcement power to compel EU subsidiaries to produce documents and to provide information under the sole custody and control of legal entities located outside the Commission's jurisdiction. It is, hence, submitted that the Commission erred in law by addressing a formal request for information to the applicants, thereby compelling them to provide documents and information under the sole control and possession of their parent company located outside the EU territory.

Precisely, the applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 18(1) and (3) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 because it disregards the document ownership and control doctrine and thus the inherent limitation of these provisions. In addition, the applicants contend that the contested decision violates the general principles of international law of territoriality, of sovereignty, of non-intervention and of equality of States by allegedly asserting enforcement jurisdiction over a company located outside the EU.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules in competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2003, L 1, p. 1).