ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

5 March 2007

Case T-455/04

Derya Beyatli and Armagan Candan

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Officials – Open competition – Notice of competition – Time-limits – Complaint – Inadmissibility)

Application: for annulment of the decision of 5 May 2004 of the president of the selection board of open competition EPSO/A/1/03 notifying the applicants of their failure in the written tests.

Held: The action is dismissed as inadmissible. Each of the parties is to bear its own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Definition

(Staff Regulations, Art. 90(2); Decision 2002/620 of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman, Art. 4)

A letter from a candidate who has failed the tests in an interinstitutional competition organised by the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), addressed solely to the head of the Commission delegation in the candidate’s Member State, generally criticising the linguistic discrimination allegedly suffered by certain candidates and expressing the conviction that the European Union would take the necessary steps to resolve that problem, but without formulating any specific request concerning the selection board’s decision, cannot be regarded as a complaint within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. Such a letter, which is not specific enough for the administration to be able to understand that it has received a complaint, appears to be a political approach by the candidate to persuade the European Union to take the necessary measures to put an end to the alleged discrimination.

The fact that such a letter, which, if it were intended to be a complaint, should have been addressed to the EPSO in accordance with Article 4 of Decision 2002/620 establishing the EPSO, might have been forwarded to the EPSO by the Commission’s head of delegation is not relevant to its characterisation, which depends on its content and not on its possible forwarding, by the addressee, to other individuals or bodies.

(see paras 45-46, 48, 50, 58)

See: C‑154/99 P Politi v European Training Foundation [2000] ECR I‑509, para. 16
Order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 May 2008 – SNIV v Commission

(Case T-327/04)

Action for annulment – State aid – Time-limit for instituting proceedings – Starting point – Publication of a brief notice in the Official Journal – Internet site – Inadmissibility

Actions for annulment – Time-limits – Point from which time starts to run – Date of publication – Day on which a measure came to the knowledge of the applicant – Subsidiary matter (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 21-22, 25-27, 34)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 936 final of 30 March 2004 in relation to the aid measures planned by the French authorities to finance the public rendering service (State aid N 515/2003 – France).

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the Syndicat national de l’industrie des viandes (SNIV) to bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission;
ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber)

14 May 2007

Case T-112/04

Manuel Ruiz Sanz and Others

v

Commission of the European Communities

(Civil service – Officials – Reports procedure – Career development report – 2001/2002 appraisal – Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

Application: for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal in relation to the applicants and, alternatively, the applicants’ career development reports for that period.

Held: The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in part and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

Summary

Officials – Actions – Reliance on the same arguments and presentation of the same or similar evidence as in other actions previously dismissed as inadmissible and unfounded – Action manifestly inadmissible and unfounded

(Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 111; Staff Regulations, Art. 43)
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest

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

2. Procedure – Intervention – Persons having an interest

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, para., 2)

Summary

1. Intervention by a Member State pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not in any way make it possible to exclude intervention by one of its local authorities or by ‘any other person establishing an interest in the result of any case’ pursuant to the second paragraph of that provision.

(see para. 20)

2. The second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice enshrines the right of persons establishing an interest in the result to intervene in cases before the Court. The exceptions to that procedural right of intervention, which is an embodiment of the right to a fair hearing, must necessarily be interpreted restrictively. Thus, a State which is not a member of the Community, such as the Swiss Confederation, cannot properly rely on the second paragraph of Article 40 of Statute of the Court of Justice, which precludes intervention by any person other than Member States and Community institutions in cases between Member States, between Community institutions or between Member States and Community institutions. That exclusion, which is set out in the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and is applicable to the procedure before the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 53 of that statute, applies only to cases between Member States or Community institutions.

(see paras 21-22)
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Procedure

–

Application initiating proceedings

–

Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Arts 19, third para., and 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 43(1), first para., 44(3), and 59) (see paras 8-12

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Portuguese Republic concerning infringement by that Member State of fundamental guarantees protected by Community law, owing to the refusal of its courts to allow an applicant to represent himself before them.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 39-40)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 49-52, 54)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim relief – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 67-68)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim measures essentially asking, first, that the Commission be ordered not to sign the contract relating to Call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (security and surveillance of buildings), secondly, should the Commission have already concluded that contract, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action and, thirdly, for the adoption of other interim measures

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

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see paras 19-20, 29)

2. European Communities – Institutions – Right of public access to documents – Regulation No 1049/2001 (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001) (see para. 26)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Lack of jurisdiction of the Community Courts (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 53)

2. Actions for damages – Independent of actions for annulment and for failure to act (Arts 230 EC, 235 EC and 288, second para., EC) (see paras 70-72)

3. Actions for damages – Commission taking a provisional position in the procedure for entering an active substance of a plant protection product in Annex I to Directive 91/414 (Art. 288, second para., EC; Council Directive No 91/414) (see paras 73, 77-81)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for, first and primarily, annulment of the decision of the Commission allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 concerning authorisation to place the active substance procymidone on the market pursuant to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230 p. 1); second, as an alternative to the claim for annulment, for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and its affiliates in a letter of 5 September 2005; and, third, for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission’s adoption of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005 and, in the alternative, as a result of the Commission’s failure to adopt the measures requested in the letter of 5 September 2005.

Operative part

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the actions for annulment and failure to act.

2. The action for damages is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe SAS and Philagro France SAS as a result of the adoption by the Commission of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 20 October 2005.

3. The action for damages is dismissed as manifestly without foundation in law in so far as it seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France as a result of the failure by the Commission to adopt the measures requested by Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and its affiliates in the letter of 5 September 2005.

4. Sumitomo Chemical Agro Europe and Philagro France are to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 10 October 2006 – Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-106/05)

Public service contracts – Call for tenders concerning technical assistance to improve the information and communication technology system in the State Institute of Statistics of the Republic of Turkey – Application rejected – Period for bringing proceedings – Confirmatory act – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Action against a decision confirming a decision not challenged within the time-limits (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 46, 48-49, 54-55, 60)

2. Procedure – Time-limits for bringing actions – Time-barred (see paras 57-58, 60)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of the Commission’s decisions not to select the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of a call for tenders for the provision of technical assistance for the improvement of the system of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) of the Turkish National Institute for Statistics and of the decisions rejecting the applicant’s request to renew the decision not to shortlist it.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2006 – Anheuser-Busch v OHIM – Budĕjovický Budvar (BUDWEISER)

(Case T-366/05)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark BUDWEISER – Earlier international word marks and figurative marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR – Refusal to register – Restriction of the goods covered – Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63) (see paras 27-48)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. Community trade mark sought: Word mark BUDWEISER for goods in Classes 32 and 33 – Application No 1603489 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budĕjovický Budvar, národní podnik Mark or sign cited in opposition: International figurative and word marks BUDWEISER and BUDWEISER BUDVAR for goods in Classes 31 and 32 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the products in dispute Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the action;
Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 January 2006 − Finland v Commission

(Case T-177/05)

Procedural issues – Objection of inadmissibility – Act not producing binding legal effects – European Communities’ own resources – Infringement proceedings – Interest for delayed entry provided for in Article 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 – Negotiation of an agreement on conditional payment

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC) (see para. 30)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see para. 32)

3. European Communities’ own resources – Establishment and making available by the Member States (Council Regulation No 1150/2000) (see para. 33)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Commission decision (Budget Directorate-General) contained in the letter of 28 February 2005 and in the confirmatory letter of 25 April 2005, whereby the Commission refused to enter into negotiations with the Republic of Finland on the conditional payment of retroactive duties, plus default interest up to the date of payment, which the Commission claimed from the Republic of Finland in the context of infringement proceedings 2003/2180, brought under Article 226 EC

Operative part

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 2 May 2007 – IPK International–World Tourism Marketing Consultants v Commission

(Case T-297/05 R)

(Interim measures – Article 256 EC – Subject-matter of the application – Admissibility – Lack of urgency)





1. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Application for suspension of the enforcement of a decision including a pecuniary obligation – Application seeking, in reality, suspension of the operation of another decision having effects on the applicant’s financial position (Arts 242 EC and 256 EC) (see paras 18, 21-24)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 44(1)(c) and 104(2)) (see paras 33-39)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Prima facie case – Urgency – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 42-43)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Particular seriousness of the prima facie case (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 51-61)

Re:

APPLICATION for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C (2006) 6452 of 4 December 2006 relating to recovery of the sum of EUR 318 000 received by the applicant as an advance in respect of the Ecodata project.

Operative part

The Court:

Dismisses the application for interim measures;
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of all the interests at stake (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 16-17)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Meaning – Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 38-39)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 48-49, 60, 69-70)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of certain provisions of Commission Directive 2006/132/EC of 11 December 2006 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include procymidone as an active substance (OJ 2006 L 349, p. 22), and for certain other interim measures.

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

Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Urgency – Prima facie case – Cumulative requirements (Arts 225(1) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 10-12)

2. Applications for interim measures – Conditions governing admissibility – Admissibility of main application – Not relevant – Limits (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(1), first subpara.) (see paras 14, 16)

3. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation – Interim relief – Conditions of grant – Serious and irreparable damage (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 36-38)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1) and (2)(b), together with recitals 28 to 31 and 250 to 252, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 98, p. 3), in so far as they exempt children’s shoes from the anti-dumping measures imposed by the regulation in question.

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

Actions for annulment

–

Time-limits

–

Starting point (Art. 230, fifth para., EC) (see paras 31, 36

)

Subject of the case

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 – Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104), making binding the commitments offered by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene from Rani, SA, Estación de servicio Lazarza, SL, Melón, SA, Estación de servicio Ahigal, SL, Els Garrafons, SL, Estación de servicio Azpeitia-Azkoitia, SL, Red Azul, SA, Sucesores de Narciso Chiva, SL, Pablo Rada Combustibles, SL and Promotores Internacional, SA, from the Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio and from Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA.

3. Estaser El Mareny, SL is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The applicants to intervene are ordered to bear their own costs.