ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2010 – ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission

(Case T-385/10 R)

Application for interim measures – Competition – Commission decision imposing a fine – Bank guarantee – Application for suspension of 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 – 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 12-14)

2. 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 – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company – Assessment having regard to the situation of the group to which the applicant company belongs – Unilateral refusal of assistance on the part of the group – Effect (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 35-37, 39-40, 49-50, 52-56)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of 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), as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 – United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-115/10)

Action for annulment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Decision 2010/45/EU – List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region – Measure not open to challenge – Measure merely confirmatory – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming an earlier decision not challenged within the time-limits – Inadmissibility – Meaning of confirmatory decision – Decision adopted following a re-examination of the earlier decision and on the basis of new factors – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 25, 27, 29-30, 33-34, 38, 41)

2. Procedure – Admissibility of actions – Judged by reference to the situation when the application was lodged – Action inadmissible – Decision replacing the contested decision during the proceedings – No impact on assessment of the admissibility of the action (see paras 46-48)

Re:

APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/45/EU of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2010 L 30, p. 322) to the extent that it lists the site called ‘Estrecho oriental’ (under reference ES6120032) as a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 January 2012 – Phoenix‑Reisen and DRV v Commission

(Case T-58/10)

Action for annulment – State aid – German system of allowances paid to employees of insolvent undertakings and the financing thereof – Decision finding no State aid – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding no State aid in respect of a national measure without opening the formal investigation procedure – Action brought by the parties concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Conditions (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 30-34)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision finding a national measure not to constitute State aid – Action by a competitor challenging the decision – Market position of the undertaking not substantially affected – Inadmissibility (Arts 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 35, 44, 46, 48)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 8707 final of 19 November 2009 declaring that the system of allowances paid to employees of insolvent undertakings and the financing thereof under German legislation does not constitute State aid (State aid NN 55/2009) (OJ 2009 C 323, p. 5).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Phoenix-Reisen GmbH and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) are ordered to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.
Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2012 — F 91 Diddeléng and Others v Commission

(Case T-341/10)

Action for annulment — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Commission’s refusal to bring infringement proceedings — Not included — No infringement of the right to effective legal protection (Arts 258 TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 26-35)

2. Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Procedure — Independent of the competition procedure (Art. 258 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 773/2004) (see para. 43)

3. Actions for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — E — Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 50-53)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 June 2010 to take no action in regard to the complaint lodged by the applicants against the Fédération Luxembourgeoise de Football (FLF), seeking annulment of rules of the FLF infringing Articles 39 and 81 EC, and an application ‘for any appropriate order’.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

2. F91 Diddeléng, Julien Bonnetaud, Thomas Gruszczynski, Rainer Hauck, Stéphane Martine, Grégory Molnar and Yann Thibout shall bear their own costs and pay those of the European Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application for interim measures directed against a Member State adjunct to a main action against the Council – Inadmissibility (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see paras 4-5)

2. Application for interim measures – Application linked to an action brought against a Member State – General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction – Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 263 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see para. 5)

3. Application for interim measures – Jurisdiction of the Court hearing the application for interim relief – Issuing of directions to third parties (Arts 256 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(1)) (see para. 7)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for: (1) an order that the Council and the Italian Republic issue a visa to the applicant; (2) suspension of operation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2005 L 28, p. 32) and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 28, p. 60); and (3) damages in compensation for loss allegedly suffered.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch as it is brought against the Italian Republic.

2. The applicant is ordered bear his own costs.
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Appeal Chamber)

7 December 2011

Case T‑274/11 P

Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni

v

European Commission

(Appeals – Civil service – Members of the contract staff – Expatriation allowance – Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations – Definition of habitual residence – Distortion of the facts – Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F‑28/10 Mioni v Commission, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Held: The appeal is dismissed. Mr Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni is to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission on the appeal.

Summary

1. Appeals – Grounds – Mistaken assessment of the facts – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Annex I, Art. 11(1))

2. Appeals – Grounds – Inadequate statement of reasons – Recourse by the Civil Service Tribunal to implied grounds – Lawfulness – Conditions

(Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36 and Annex I, Art. 7(1))

1. The first instance court has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts. The appraisal of the facts by the first instance court does not, except in the case of distortion of the evidence submitted to that court, constitute a question of law which, as such, is subject to review by the General Court. Such distortion must be obvious – without any need for a new assessment of the facts and the evidence – from the documents on the Court’s file.

(see para. 18)

See:

Case T‑222/07 P Kerstens v Commission [2008] ECR‑SC I‑B‑1‑37 and II‑B‑1‑267, paras 60 to 62 and the case-law cited therein

2. The obligation of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons, pursuant to Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 7(1) of Annex I thereto, does not require the Civil Service Tribunal to provide an account that follows exhaustively and point by point all the reasoning articulated by the parties to the case. The grounds stated may therefore be implicit, on condition that they enable the persons concerned to know the reasons for which a particular ruling was made and provide the General Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.

(see para. 34)

See:

2 July 2010, Case T‑485/08 P Lafili v Commission, para. 72 and the case‑law cited therein
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 – Balancing of all the interests involved – 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 11-13, 27)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Decision of the European Parliament waiving the immunity of a Member – No undermining of the right freely to exercise the parliamentary mandate and the proper function of the Parliament – No urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16, 23-26)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Account to be taken of the manifest illegality of the contested measure – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 18-19)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof – Realisation of the damage depending on future and uncertain events – Lack of urgency (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 21-22)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 waiving the applicant’s immunity.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords



Keywords

Application for interim measures

—

Suspension of operation of a measure

—

Request which has become devoid of purpose

—

No need to adjudicate (Art. 278 TFEU) (see paras 7, 8, 10

)
Keywords



Keywords

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 — Weighing-up of the interests — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the court hearing the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16‑18)

2. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Damage capable of affecting a general economic sector — Action brought not by a public law body but by individuals — Obligation to claim individual damage (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25‑27)

3. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 28, 29, 36, 37, 43, 44)

4. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Meaning (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 47)

5. Application for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Financial loss — Damage which may subsequently be made good by compensation or by means of an action for damages — Damage which cannot be regarded as irreparable (Arts 268 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 340 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 48)
Article 122(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark provides that ‘[t]he Commission shall check the legality of those acts of the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in respect of which Community law does not provide for any check on legality by another body …’. The scope of that provision is thus expressly contingent on there being no check of the legality of acts of the President of OHIM by another body. The General Court, as a judicial body of the Court of Justice under the first sentence of Article 19(1) TEU is ‘another body’, as it reviews the legality of acts in accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

It follows that an act of the president of OHIM does not fall within the scope of Article 122 of Regulation No 207/2009 and that, therefore, inter alia, the second sentence of the third paragraph of that article, according to which ‘[r]eferral shall be made to the Commission within one month of the day on which the party concerned first became aware of the act in question’ is not applicable. Accordingly, OHIM cannot successfully argue that the referral to the Commission of a complaint against an act of the President of OHIM, or the completion of an administrative procedure to that end, or any express or implied decision of the Commission concerning that complaint, is a mandatory precondition — or perquisite for admissibility — for an action brought before the EU Courts against such an act pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph or the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

That assessment is confirmed by a teleological interpretation of Article 122 of Regulation No 207/2009. When the rules of primary law governing the system of judicial protection of the Treaty still suffered from a lacuna concerning acts of EU bodies or agencies, recognition of the Commission’s role in reviewing lawfulness, such as that provided for in Article 122 of that same regulation, addressed the need perceived by the EU legislature to have a decision of the Commission in order to make acts adopted by EU bodies or agencies at least indirectly reviewable before the EU Courts. Thus, the wording ‘acts … in respect of which Community law does not provide for any check on legality by another body’ confirms that the Commission was to be given a residual, subsidiary power of review in order to ensure access to the EU Courts, at least through an express or implied decision of the Commission for the purposes of the third and fourth sentences of Article 122(3) of Trade mark Regulation No 207/2009. However, at the latest when the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU entered into force, that objective lost its purpose and cannot now serve as a basis for alleging that the procedure under Article 122 of that regulation is a mandatory step before proceedings may be brought before the EU Courts.

(see paras 54-56)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

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)

Subject of the case

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

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council

(Case T‑572/11 R II)

‛Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim relief — Fresh application — Absence of new facts — Inadmissibility’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of introducing a fresh application — Condition — New facts — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 9-10, 12, 14-15)

2. 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 — Consequences when examining a new application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim relief, in particular an application for suspension of operation of the restrictive measures instituted by the Council against Syria, in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Hassan v Council

(Case T‑572/11 R II)

‛Interim relief — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for interim relief — Fresh application — Absence of new facts — Inadmissibility’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Dismissal of application — Possibility of introducing a fresh application — Condition — New facts — Inadmissibility (Art. 278 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 109) (see paras 9-10, 12, 14-15)

2. 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 — Consequences when examining a new application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see para. 14)

Re:

APPLICATION for interim relief, in particular an application for suspension of operation of the restrictive measures instituted by the Council against Syria, in so far as those measures affect the applicant.

Operative part

1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.