ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 February 2012 —

Ligny Pesca di Guaiana Francesco and Others v Commission



(Case T‑330/08)

Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery plan for bluefin tuna — Setting TACs for 2008 — Act of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible

1. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Not possible to base an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 16)

2. 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 18‑23, 27‑30)

3. 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 (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47) (see para. 32)

4. Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them — Regulation establishing emergency measures to restrict red tuna fishing — Action by a trade association of all vessel owners active in the fishing and fisheries processing and marketing industry — Members of the association not themselves having locus standi –Inadmissibility (Art. 230, fourth para., EC; Commission Regulation No 530/2008) (see paras 34, 35)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Article 1 and Article 3(1) 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 action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2010 – Germany v Commission

(Case T-571/08)

Action for annulment – State aid – Information injunction – Non-actionable measure – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Concept – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included – Commission decision in the context of the administrative investigation procedure in relation to an aid measure directing the Member State to provide information – Preparatory measure (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 22-23, 31)

2. State aid – Administrative procedure – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Condition (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 5(2), 10(3), and 13(1)) (see paras 26, 29, 39-40)

3. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision of the Commission to initiate a formal investigation procedure in relation to State aid accompanied by provisional classification as new aid (Arts 107(1) TFEU, 108(2) and (3) TFEU and 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-34)

4. State aid – Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market – Possibility for the Commission to base its decision on the information available – Limits (Art. 108(2) TFEU; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 13(1)) (see para. 43)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 30 October 2008, requiring information to be provided in the proceedings relating to State aid to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007)).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3) (see paras 9-11)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – 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 14-15)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006 and (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are 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 – Serious and irreparable damage – Cumulative nature – Weighing-up of the interests – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 14-16)

2. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 25-26)

3. European Communities’ public procurement – Conclusion of a contract following a call for tenders – Discretion of the institutions – Judicial review – Limits (see para. 28)

4. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure – Loss not in itself constituting serious damage (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 29)

5. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure – Assessment – Account taken of the size of the undertaking (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 30)

6. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Loss of opportunity arising from the exclusion of a tenderer from a tendering procedure – Loss capable of full reparation in the context of the action in the main proceedings or an action for compensation – Not irreparable in character (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 32-35)

7. Applications for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Contested measure infringing a superior rule of law – Condition not automatically fulfilled – Burden of proof (Arts 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 36)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for interim relief concerning the tendering procedure EuropeAid/127054/C/SER/Multi relating to short-term services in the exclusive interest of third countries benefiting from European Commission external aid.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2009 — Sniace v Commission

(Case T-238/09 R)

‛Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to have regard to formal requirements — Inadmissibility’

1. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Prima facie case — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage — Balancing of all the interests involved (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 15)

2. Applications for interim measures — Conditions for admissibility — Application — Formal requirements (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see paras 16-17, 21)

3. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Interim measures — Conditions for granting — Urgency — Serious and irreparable damage capable of arising at any moment — Meaning — Burden of proof (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 24-25)

4. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Serious and irreparable damage — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — National implementing measures — National rights of action — Effect (Art. 242 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 27)

5. Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation of a measure — Conditions for granting — Balancing of all the interests involved — Decision on State aid (Arts 88(2) EC, 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2); Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 7) (see paras 30-31)

Re:

APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 1479 final of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC of .

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of basing an action brought before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Article 263, fourth para., TFEU – None (Art. 230, fourth and fifth paras, EC; Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see para. 57)

2. Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Regulation concerning the entry of certain designations in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ – Protection of the geographical indication ‘Aceto balsamico di Modena’ – Action by a producer established outside the provinces in respect of which the entry made – No acquired rights specific to that producer – Inadmissibility (Arts 230, fourth para., EC and 249, second para., EC; Council Regulation No 510/2006, Art. 13(1)) (see paras 59-70)

3. European Union – Judicial review of the legality of the acts of the institutions – Measures of general scope – Protection assured by the national courts where the EU judicature without jurisdiction – Regulation No 2081/92 – No opposition procedure initiated against an application for registration of a geographical indication, provided for by the regulation, and subsequent introduction of an action before the national courts – Infringement of the right to effective legal protection – None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 2081/92, Art. 5(5) and (7)) (see paras 73, 75-79)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)) (OJ 2009 L 175, p. 7).

Operative part

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena.

3. Acetificio Marcello de Nigris Srl is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The Italian Republic and Consorzio Filiera Aceto Balsamico di Modena are ordered to bear their own costs.
Order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2009 – Andersen v Commission

(Case T-87/09)

State aid – Measures in favour of Danske Statsbaner – Public service obligations – Decision to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC – Inadmissibility

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 50-55)

2. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing binding legal effects – Decision to open a formal investigation procedure classifying a transport service as a public service – Legal effects independent of the final decision – None (Arts 88(2) EC and 230 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Arts 4(4) and 6(1)) (see paras 56-61)

Re:

ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 4776 final of 10 September 2008 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC in respect of State aid C 41/2008 (ex NN 35/2008), implemented by the Kingdom of Denmark in favour of Danske Statsbaner.

Operative part

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 24 April 2009 – Nycomed Danmark v EMEA

(Case T-52/09 R)

Application for interim measures – Marketing authorisation for a medicinal product – Ultrasound echocardiographic imaging agent for diagnostic purposes (perflubutane) – Refusal by the EMEA to grant a waiver from the obligation to submit a paediatric investigation plan – Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures – No urgency

1. 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 –Order of examination and method of verification – Discretion of the judge dealing with the application for interim relief (Arts 225 EC, 242 EC and 243 EC;Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 37-40)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Serious and irreparable damage – Burden of proof –Materialisation of the damage dependent on future and uncertain events(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,Art. 104(2)) (see paras 59-60)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements –Summary of the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the interim measures applied for(Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Arts 104(2) and 109) (see paras 61-62)

4. 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 (Arts 235 EC, 242 EC and 288 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 70-73)

5. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Serious and irreparable damage – Financial loss – Situation which could jeopardise the existence of the applicant company (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see paras 74-80)

6. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting – Urgency – Account to be taken of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (Arts 242 EC and 243 EC; Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 82)

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for suspension of the operation of the EMEA’s decision of 28 November 2008 rejecting the application for a product-specific waiver concerning perflubutane and, secondly, for the grant of interim measures.

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 June 2010 – Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-359/09)

Action for annulment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Reports of observers sent by the European Union to the Knin region (Croatia) – Interim measure – Inadmissibility – Implied refusal of access – Interest in bringing proceedings – Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought – No need to adjudicate

1. Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Meaning – Measures producing binding legal effects – Preparatory measures – Not included (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6 to 8; Council Decision 2006/683, Annex II) (see paras 26-31)

2. Actions for annulment – Interest in bringing proceedings – Action brought against an alleged implied rejection decision by the Council concerning an application for access to documents – Express decision taken during the proceedings – No further interest in bringing an action (Art. 230 EC; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Arts 6 to 8; Council Decision 2006/683, Annex II) (see paras 34-39)

3. Actions for annulment – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Unlimited jurisdiction – Directions issued to an institution – Not permissible (Art. 230 EC) (see paras 42-44)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the decision of the Council of the European Union of 17 June 2009 refusing the applicant access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’, and for annulment of the implied refusal decision adopted on confirmatory application and, second, application seeking a declaration that the Council be ordered to authorise access, in electronic form, to the documents requested.

Operative part

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Ivan Jurašinović for annulment of the implied decision of the Council of the European Union rejecting his confirmatory application for access to the reports of European Union observers in Croatia, in the Knin zone, from 1 to 31 August 1995, and to the documents entitled ‘ECMM RC Knin Log reports’.

2. The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible.

3. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
APPLICATION for interim measures seeking, in essence, first, an order suspending the operation of the decision by which the Publications Office of the European Union awarded the contract referred to in Invitation to Tender No 10234 ‘Daily transport and delivery of the Official Journal, books, other periodicals and publications’ to Entreprise des postes et télécommunications Luxembourg, second, an order prohibiting the signature of the contract referred to in the Invitation to Tender and, third, if the contract has already been signed, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action.
Order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 – General Bearing v OHIM (GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION)

(Case T-394/09)

Community trade mark – Application for Community word mark GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctive character – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Procedure – Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Identification of the subject-matter of the dispute – Brief summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 44(1)(c)) (see para. 20)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 73/2009‑1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION as a Community trade mark.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark: General Bearing Corp. Community trade mark sought: Word mark GENERAL BEARING CORPORATION for goods in Classes 7 and 12 – Registration No 6345871 Decision of the examiner: Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed





Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures – Application in connection with an action for compensation against a former Member and officials of the Commission – General Court not having jurisdiction (Arts 256 TFEU, 268 TFEU, 279 TFEU and 340 TFEU, second para.) (see paras 11-12)

2. Application for interim measures – Suspension of operation of a measure – Interim measures – Conditions for granting (Art. 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2)) (see para. 14)

3. Application for interim measures – Conditions for admissibility – Application – Formal requirements (Art. 279 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 104(2) and (3)) (see para. 16)

Subject of the case

Re:

Essentially, an application to have the activity of the ‘Centre pour le développement de l’entreprise (CDE)’ in Belgium declared illegitimate, to prevent the Commission and its agents from entering into financial relations with the CDE or from recognising the legitimacy of the CDE and to order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of money if the Commission recognises the legitimacy of that body.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.
Keywords

Subject of the case

Operative part



Keywords

Application for interim measures

–

Application linked to an action against a Member State

–

General Court clearly lacking jurisdiction

–

Inadmissibility (Arts 256 TFEU, 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 51) (see para. 7

)

Subject of the case

Re:

APPLICATION seeking to suspend application of Paragraphs 47 and 48(a) of the German Federal code on notaries (Bundesnotarordnung) with regard to the applicant.

Operative part

Operative part

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.