ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2019 –

Pilatus Bank v ECB

(Case T‑687/18)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Suspension measures taken by the national supervisory authority — Appointment of a contact person — Limited communication with the ECB — Procedural defects — Intermediary or preparatory measures — Rights of defence — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Measures altering the applicant’s legal situation — E-mail from the European Central Bank indicating the terms of communication between it and the applicant as part of an administrative procedure to withdraw accreditation as the latter’s credit institution — Not included

(Art. 263, 1st para. TFEU)

(see paras 15-20, 23-26)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the ECB’s email of 10 September 2018 in so far as, by that email, the ECB requested the applicant to direct its communications via the Competent Person appointed under Maltese law or with the Competent Person’s approval.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.
6.

EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications capable of designating the characteristics of a product or service –Definition — Mark composed of a word or neologism resulting from a combination of elements (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see para. 41)
2.

Judicial proceedings — General Court seised under an arbitration clause — Capacity to be a defendant — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the modernisation of the higher education systems of third countries — Agreements concluded with the Commission — Substitution ex lege of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) in the Commission’s rights and obligations — Action directed against the Commission — Inadmissibility (Art. 272 TFEU; Council Regulation No 58/2003; Commission Decision 2013/776) (see paras 49-52)
Order of the President of the General Court of 13 February 2019 –

BRF and SHB Comercio e Industria de Alimentos v Commission

(Case T‑429/18 R)

(Application for interim measures — Public health — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 — Amendment of the lists of third-country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments in Brazil — No urgency — Weighing-up of competing interests)

1. Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Burden of proof — Financial loss — Obligation to provide concrete and precise indications, supported by detailed documentary evidence — Situation which could jeopardise an applicant company’s very existence or irremediably alter its position in the market — Assessment in the light of the party’s size, turnover and characteristics of the group to which it belongs — No precise and convincing arguments and evidence (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4) and (5)) (see paras 34-45)

2. Application for interim relief — Request for the grant of any other or additional measure considered necessary or appropriate — Application not within the jurisdiction of the court hearing the application for interim measures (Arts 278, 279 and 256(1) TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see para. 65)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, principally, suspension of the application of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/700 of 8 May 2018 amending the lists of third-country establishments from which imports of specified products of animal origin are permitted, regarding certain establishments from Brazil (OJ 2018 L 118, p. 1), either until a definitive ruling has been given on the action brought by the applicants under Article 263 TFEU, or until such date as determined by the President of the General Court, and, in the alternative, suspension of the application of that regulation in so far as it concerns the applicants’ establishments included in (i) the list of establishments authorised to import meat from poultry and lagomorphs from Brazil (Section II), (ii) the list of establishments authorised to import minced meat, meat preparations and mechanically separated meat from Brazil (Section V) which have generated no more than two notifications via the rapid alert system for food and feed between 1 March 2017 and 19 April 2018 or (iii) the list of establishments authorised to import meat products from Brazil (Section VI), or an order for any other or additional measure which the President of the Court may consider necessary or appropriate.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Lack of brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based — Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 21, 1st para. and 53, 1st para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d) and (e))

(see paras 21, 22)
Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Cumulative nature — Order of examination and method of verification — Discretion of the 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)

(see paras 9-14)
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T‑55/19)

(Action for compensation — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Lack of competence)

Common foreign and security policy — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Action for damages seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant’s erroneous inclusion on a list of persons subject to restrictive measures — Not included

(Arts 24(1), 2d para. and 40 TEU; Art. 275 TFEU; Council Decisions (CFSP) 2018/778 and (CFSP) 2019/806)

(see paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 32, 33)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), in so far as those decisions concern the applicants.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Transfer of the intellectual property right in question — Successor substituted for the former holder of the right — Order of the General Court needed

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 174 to 176)

(see para. 23)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 12 November 2019 –

Breyer v Commission

(Case T‑158/19)

(Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents concerning the research project ‘iBorderCtrl: Intelligent Portable Control System’ — Partial refusal to grant access — Plea of inadmissibility — Incorrect designation of the defendant — Correction of the application — No need to adjudicate)

Judicial proceedings — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Identification of the defendant — Erroneous designation as defendant of a person other than the author of the contested measure — Inadmissibility — Limits — Factors allowing the defendant to be identified without difficulty

(Art. 263, first para. TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(c))

(see paras 22-25, 31)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Research Executive Agency (REA) of 17 January 2019 concerning the request for access to documents made by the applicant on the basis 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p.43).

Operative part

1. It must be held that the party against which the present action has been brought is the Research Executive Agency (REA).

2. There is no need to rule on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission.

3. Mr. Patrick Breyer shall pay the costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility.
Interim relief — 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 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 29, 31, 32, 69-72)
Agriculture — Uniform legislation — Protection of plant varieties — Appeals procedure — Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office on the appeal — Remittance of the case to the competent body of the CPVO — Same officials entrusted with the re-examination of the case — No infringement of the right to a fair hearing

(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 41(1); Council Regulation No 2100/94, Art. 72)

(see paras 59, 60)
Order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 July 2020 –

Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T‑838/19)

(Action for annulment – Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment – Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal – Act not open to challenge – Preparatory act – Inadmissibility)

1. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 20-22, 27)

2. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to suspend the appeal proceedings pending a definitive decision of the General Court in the case which is likely to influence the pending case – Not included (Art. 263 TFEU; Council Regulation No 6/2002, Art. 61(1)) (see paras 25, 26, 28)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1005/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 May 2020 –

Universität Bremen v Commission and REA

(Case T‑660/19)

(Action for annulment – Grant project – Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ – H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 call for proposals – REA decision rejecting a proposal – Incorrect identification of the defendant – Inadmissible in part)

Judicial proceedings – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Incorrect designation of the defendant – Inadmissibility

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21)

(see paras 13-19)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of decision Ares(2019) 4590599 of the REA of 16 July 2019, rejecting the proposal submitted by the applicant in relation to the H2020-SC6-Governance-2019 call for proposals.

Operative part

1. The action in Case T‑660/19 is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the European Commission.

2. The Universität Bremen is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission in the proceedings concerning the objection of inadmissibility.
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2020 –

Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

(Case T‑143/19)

(Action for annulment – State aid – Operators on the market in electricity produced from renewable energy sources – Power purchase agreements – Legislative amendments with retroactive effect limiting tariff advantages – Complaint to the Commission alleging aid in favour of energy suppliers – Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market – Status as an interested party – Safeguarding of procedural rights – Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Commission decision declaring State aid to be compatible with the common market without initiating the formal investigation procedure – Action by interested parties within the meaning of Article 108(2) TFEU – Admissibility – Conditions

(Art. 108(2) and (3) TFEU; Council Regulation No 2015/1589, Art. 1(h))

(see paras 28-44, 48)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.38967 (2014/NN-2) – Greece – National operating aid scheme in favour of installations using renewable energy sources and highly efficient combined power and heat installations.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Application for interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 14-17)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 July 2020 –

KF v SatCen

(Case T‑619/19)

(Action for annulment and for damages – Staff of SatCen – Members of the contract staff – Jurisdiction of the EU Courts – Common foreign and security policy – Decision to launch administrative investigations in respect of the applicant pursuant to a judgment of the General Court – Acts adversely affecting an official – Claim for interest on a sum awarded by the General Court as compensation for the harm suffered – Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure – Action manifestly inadmissible)

1. Common foreign and security policy – Jurisdiction of the EU judicature – Acts adopted by the European Satellite Centre concerning staff management – Included (Arts 2, 19(1), 21, 23 and 24(1), second para. TEU; Arts 263, 268, 270, 275, first para. and 340, second para. TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/824, Art. 28) (see paras 18, 20-22, 24-28, 30)

2. European Union Agencies – European Satellite Centre (SATCEN) – Staff Regulations – Appeal procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Action against a decision rejecting a complaint – Admissibility (Art 263 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 90(1)) (see para. 36)

3. Action for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects vis-a-vis third parties – Decision to launch an administrative investigation in relation to the European Satellite Centre – Preparatory act – Precluded (Art 263 TFEU; Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/824, Art. 27 and Annex IX, Arts 1 and 2)) (see paras 40-45)

Re:

Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of the decision of the Director of SatCen of 3 July 2019 to launch investigations concerning the applicant and, second, based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant, in particular as a result of that decision.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.

2. KF shall pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

3. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.
Judicial proceedings – Objection of inadmissibility – Power of the General Court to dismiss an action on the merits without ruling on the objection of inadmissibility – Extent of its discretion

(Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts 126 and 130)

(see para. 23)
Interim relief — 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), 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4))

(see paras 20-23)
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2020 –

Tratkowski v Commission

(Case T‑14/20)

(Action for annulment – Civil service – Officials – Internal Competition COM/2/AD 12/18 (AD 12) – Submission of the application using the form provided for that purpose and referred to in Article 2 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations – Request to be admitted to the competition, lodged at the same time and on a separate sheet of paper, to the Appointing Authority – Eligibility conditions – Decision of the selection board to reject the applicant’s application – Rejection by the selection board of the candidate’s request for re-examination due to it being out of time – Decision of the Appointing Authority refusing to grant the applicant’s request to set aside one of the conditions provided for in the notice of competition in order to admit him to the competition – Challenge to the decision of the Appointing Authority and not to that of the selection board – Legal interest in bringing proceedings – Inadmissibility)

1. Actions brought by officials – Decision of a competition selection board – Prior administrative complaint – Complaint submitted to the appointing authority against its decision refusing to set aside one of the conditions laid down in the notice of competition – No action against the selection board’s decision to reject the applicant’s application – Inadmissibility (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90(2) and 91(2)) (see paras 35-40)

2. Actions brought by officials – Prior administrative complaint – Time limits – Claim barred by lapse of time – Excusable error – Meaning – Experienced official mistaken as to the remedies for challenging the competition selection board’s decision – Excluded (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 43-48)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of 14 March 2019 by which the Appointing Authority of that institution rejected the applicant’s request to be admitted to Internal Competition COM/2/AD 12/18 (AD 12) on the ground that he did not fulfil the condition, laid down in the relevant notice of competition, relating to him holding grade AD 10.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
4.

EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Alteration of a decision of the Office – Assessment in the light of the powers conferred on the Board of Appeal (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see para. 34)
Order of the President of the General Court of 22 January 2021 –

Green Power Technologies v Commission and ECSEL Joint Undertaking

(Case T‑533/20 R)

(Interim measures – Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Reimbursement of sums paid – Application for interim measures – 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 14, 16, 17)

2. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Risk for the company in filing for insolvency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 20-22, 27-29, 34)

3. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Burden of proof – Financial loss – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Debit notes not constituting an enforceable title – Financial loss not imminent – No urgency (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 37-40)

4. Interim relief – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable harm – Financial loss – Situation liable to endanger the existence of the applicant company – Assessment in the light of a risk of having to abolish posts (Arts 278 and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 156(4)) (see paras 41-44)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for suspension of the operation of debit note No 4440200016 of 17 June 2020 issued by the ECSEL Joint Undertaking for the amount of EUR 200 930.35.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.