ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Having regard to the requirements which follow from the effective protection which must be guaranteed in public procurement matters, when an unsuccessful tenderer is able to show that there is a particularly serious prima facie case, it cannot be required to establish that the rejection of its application for interim measures risks causing it irreparable harm, otherwise the effective legal protection which it enjoys pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union would be undermined in a manner that is both excessive and unjustified. Nevertheless, that easing of the requirements applicable to assessment of the existence of urgency, justified by the right to an effective judicial remedy, applies only during the pre-contractual phase, provided that the standstill period resulting from Article 118(2) and (3) of Regulation No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, and from Article 171(1) of Regulation No 1268/2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 is respected. Where the adjudicating authority has concluded the contract with the successful tenderer after the expiry of that period and before the application for interim measures was lodged, such easing is no longer justified.

As regards an application for interim measures brought after the signing of the contract with the successful tenderer, the easing of the requirements applicable to assessment of the existence of urgency of public procurement cannot be applied, since, as the applicant’s letter to the adjudicating authority during the pre-contractual phase so that it would reconsider its award decision shows, the applicant had sufficient evidence to determine whether there was a potential irregularity in that decision for the purposes of bringing an application for interim measures before the conclusion of the contract between the adjudicating authority and the successful tenderer. Lodged in good time, an application for interim measures would have enabled the applicant to obtain an order under Article 157(2) of the Rules of Procedure suspending the operation of the decision awarding the contract for the duration of the proceedings for interim measures, even before the other party had made its submissions,

(see paras 25, 26, 31, 32, 34, 37)
Order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 –

WH v EUIPO

(Case T‑819/17)

(Civil service — Officials — 2016 appraisal — Deletion of certain comments from the appraisal report — Inadmissibility)

Actions brought by officials — Subject-matter — Directions to the administration — Statements of law — Inadmissibility

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Art. 91)

(see paras 21, 22)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU requesting that the General Court order EUIPO to delete from the applicant’s appraisal report for the year 2016 all criticism concerning the applicant’s communication style, inasmuch as it constitutes a misrepresentation and infringes the applicant’s fundamental right to express ideas and opinions freely.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Judicial proceedings—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—Action seeking compensation for loss caused by an EU institution—No indications as to the loss suffered—Inadmissibility

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

(see paras 34-42)
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 November 2018 –

Intercontact Budapest v CdT

(Case T‑809/17)

(Action for annulment — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Delay — Inadmissible)

1. Actions for annulment — Time-limits — Point from which time starts to run — Date of notification of the decision — Decision to reject a tenderer’s bid — Tenderer’s obligation to apply for a reasoned decision within a reasonable period after becoming aware of the rejection of its bid (Art. 263, sixth para. TFEU) (see paras 19, 20)

2. Judicial proceedings — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Claim barred by lapse of time — Strict application of EU rules (see paras 29, 30)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the CdT of 10 July 2017 ranking the applicant, respectively, in second and third place in the classification of tenderers selected for the conclusion of multiple framework contracts as a result of public procurement procedures FL/GEN 16-01 and FL/GEN 16-02.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 July 2018 –

Apple Distribution International v Commission

(Case T‑101/17)

(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid planned by Germany to fund film production and distribution — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

1. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Person individually affected by a measure general in character—Conditions (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 24-28, 43-48)

2. Actions for annulment—Natural or legal persons—Measures of direct and individual concern to them—Competitive position of the undertaking substantially affected—Burden of proof on the applicant (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU) (see paras 35-38)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016 on the aid scheme SA.38418 — 2014/C (ex 2014/N) which Germany is planning to implement for the funding of film production and distribution (OJ 2016 L 314, p. 63).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene lodged by the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the Filmförderungsanstalt.

3. Apple Distribution International shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications to intervene.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 December 2018 –

Bowles v ECB

(Case T‑447/17)

(Civil Service — ECB Staff — Appointment decision concerning the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board — No act adversely affecting the applicant — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. Judicial proceedings — Decision taken by way of reasoned order — Conditions — Action manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 126) (see paras 14, 15)

2. Actions brought by officials — Action against a decision rejecting a complaint — Effect — Disputed measure referred to the Court — Exception — Decision not confirmatory in character (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 19, 22)

3. Actions brought by officials — Staff of the European Central Bank — Acts adversely affecting an official — Concept — Direct appointment decision concerning the post of Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board — Not included (Art. 270 TFEU; Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; European Central Bank Staff Rules, Art. 1a.7(d)) (see paras 33, 34, 36, 45-48, 53)

4. Officials — Acts of the administration — Implied decision — Concept (see para. 54)

5. Actions brought by officials — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was brought — Action capable of securing a benefit for the applicant (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 74-77, 83-85)

6. Actions brought by officials — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of the application for annulment leading to dismissal of the application for damages (Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91) (see paras 103-105)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 31 January 2017 to appoint M.S. to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board (ii) of the decision not to appoint the applicant to that post and (iii) of the decision not to allow the applicant to apply for that post and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Fundamental rights — Right to effective judicial protection — Review of legality of EU measures — Procedures — Protection of that right by the EU judicature or by the national courts according to the legal nature of the contested measure — Possibility of using an annulment action or reference for a preliminary ruling on validity

(Arts 6(1), third para., TEU and 19(1) TEU; Arts 263, fourth para., TFEU, 267 TFEU and 277 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 52(7))

(see paras 92-97)
Order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2018 –

Pracsis and Conceptexpo Project v Commission and EACEA

(Case T‑33/18)

(Action for annulment and for damages — Public service contracts — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Purely confirmatory act — Deadline for bringing an appeal — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

1. EU agencies — Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Obligation first to bring an administrative appeal before the Commission — Time-limits — Matter of public policy — Infringement of the right to an effective remedy — None (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Council Regulation No 58/2003, Art. 22) (see paras 28-31, 56)

2. Action for annulment — Action against a decision refusing to withdraw or amend an earlier act — Inadmissibility — Concept of confirmatory decision — Re-examination of an earlier decision in reply to a claim of new and substantial facts — Not included — Concept of new and substantial facts — Scope (Art. 263 TFEU) (see paras 33-38)

3. Action for annulment — Action relating in reality to a contractual dispute — Action directed against a decision of an EU agency inextricably linked to contractual relations between it and the applicant — No jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Inadmissibility (Art. 263 TFEU) (see para. 62)

4. Judicial proceedings — 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 — Application for compensation for damage allegedly caused by an EU institution — Factors enabling identification of the conduct of which the institution is accused, the causal link and the reality and certainty of the damage caused (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 21, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 76(d)) (see para. 66)

5. Actions for damages — Application for damages linked to an application for annulment — Dismissal of claim for annulment leading to dismissal of the claim for compensation (Arts 263 TFEU and 340 TFEU) (see para. 68)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2017 dismissing the administrative appeal brought against the decisions of EACEA of 17 July and 11 August 2017 and, ‘in so far as is necessary’, the annulment of those decisions of EACEA and its ‘decision’ to sign a contract with the tenderer ranked in first position, inasmuch as those decisions rank the tender of the applicants’ consortium in second position according to the cascade mechanism in the call for tenders EACEA/2017/01, regarding event organisation services and promotional campaigns in the audiovisual field and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants allegedly suffered due to those decisions.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 December 2018 –

Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)

(Case T‑5/18)

(EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

1. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Meaning — Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 16-19)

2. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Figurative mark Hamburg BEER COMPANY (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 23, 25-28, 44, 49, 56)

3. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal — Marks devoid of any distinctive character — Trade mark made up of several elements — Possible for the competent authority to examine each of the elements making up the trade mark — Scope of protection of the mark (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)(b)) (see paras 31, 32)

4. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Legality — Examination by the EU judicature — Criteria (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 54)

5. EU trade mark — Decisions of the Office — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — EUIPO’s previous decision-making practice — Principle of legality — Need for a strict and complete examination in each particular case (Council Regulation No 207/2009) (see para. 55)

6. EU trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the EU trade mark — Refusal of registration based on one of the absolute grounds for refusal set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Whether sufficient (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 7(1)) (see para. 58)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 (Case R 436/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Hamburg BEER COMPANY as an EU trade mark.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.
Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 6 May 2019 –

Bernis and Others v ECB

(Case T‑283/18)

(Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Parent company and subsidiary — Declaration by the ECB that an entity is failing or is likely to fail — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Preparatory measures — Acts not open to judicial review — Inadmissibility)

Action for annulment — Actionable measures — Meaning — Measures producing binding legal effects — Preparatory measures — Not included — Assessment by the European Central Bank determining that a credit institution is failing or likely to fail — Inadmissibility

(Art. 263 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 806/2014, Art. 18(1)(a))

(see paras 29-32, 34, 36, 49)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the European Central Bank’s decisions of 23 February 2018 by which the latter declared that ABLV Bank AS and its subsidiary, ABLV Bank Luxembourg SA, were failing or were likely to fail within the meaning of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 February 2019 –

Brunke v Commission

(Case T‑258/18)

(Action for failure to act — Deadline for bringing an action — Starting point — No invitation to act — Second invitation to act — Manifest inadmissibility — Application of a declaratory nature — Application for interim measures — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

1. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim for a declaratory judgment — Inadmissibility (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 9)

2. Actions for failure to act — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Claim seeking that directions be issued to an institution — Not permissible (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 14)

3. Actions for failure to act — Time-limits — Mandatory — Action brought late — Claim barred by lapse of time (Art. 265, second para. TFEU) (see paras 21-23)

4. Actions for failure to act — Position taken within the meaning of Article 265, second para., TFEU before the action brought — Inadmissibility — Insufficient statement of reasons — Irrelevant (Art. 265, second para. TFEU) (see paras 32, 39)

5. Actions for failure to act — Failure to act — Definition — No action taken — Measure not considered satisfactory — Not included (Art. 265 TFEU) (see para. 38)

Re:

Principally, an application for a declaration establishing ‘the discriminatory effect’ of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) and, in the alternative, first, an application, in essence, for an interim measure to be directed against the Commission and, secondly, an application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to follow up on the applicant’s letters of 6 June and 27 December 2017.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed in part due to the Court’s manifest lack of jurisdiction to hear the action and in part because it is manifestly inadmissible.

2. There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

3. Mr Lothar Brunke shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The Council shall bear its own costs relating to its application to intervene.
Actions brought by officials — Staff report — Prior administrative complaint — Optional — Submission — Consequences — Compliance with the procedural constraints associated with complaints through official channels

(Staff Regulations of Officials, Arts 90 and 91; Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, Art. 46)

(see para. 20)
Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 2019 –

Kipper v Commission

(Case T‑394/18)

(Independent service provider for the Commission (free-lance) — Application for social benefits granted to officials in category B — Lack of jurisdiction)

General Court — Jurisdiction — Dispute arising from contracts of employment concluded outside the scope of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and not containing an arbitration clause — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court

(Arts 268 and 270 TFEU)

(see paras 17, 18, 20)

Re:

Application for various social benefits granted to officials in category B.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed for having been brought before a court that has no jurisdiction to hear it.
4

As regards the second measure proposed by the Republic of Latvia, that international legal proceedings should be initiated against the Kingdom of Norway after 31 March 2018, the Commission stated, in essence, that it could not act on that measure, since there were procedural obstacles. More specifically, the Commission stated as follows: ‘55. As regards the suggestion in the [invitation to act] to bring international judicial proceedings against [the Kingdom of Norway], and leaving aside any substantive considerations, there are clear procedural impediments, which the [invitation to act] does not take into account. 56. Firstly, it should be noted that the 1920 Treaty of Paris does not provide for a dispute-settlement mechanism. The dispute-settlement mechanisms provided for by the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (Unclos) are not applicable since the issues are not about the interpretation and application Unclos, but rather about the interpretation and application of the 1920 Treaty of Paris. 57. Secondly, international arbitration is subject to finding an agreement with [the Kingdom of Norway], which is currently highly unlikely in the prevailing circumstances. 58. Thirdly, the default dispute-settlement mechanism that remains is the International Court of Justice. [However], the EU has no legal standing before this Court. In addition, whilst a number of Member States are … party to the 1920 Treaty of Paris, the European Union is not. Nevertheless, the [European Union] has exclusive competence regarding the conservation of marine biological resources. 59. In any event, initiation of international proceedings in a multilateral context could have significant implications. The Treaty of Paris involves 46 Contracting Parties, each with different interpretations of its provisions. Such a step would also risk affecting the [EU’s] bilateral relations with [the Kingdom of Norway] beyond the fisheries issues at stake. 60. Finally, if there is a general principle in international law of peaceful settlement of disputes, there is no obligation under EU or international law to bring judicial proceedings, as international law provides for different ways to settle disputes, not all of them of [a] judicial nature.’
Order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 –

Makhlouf v Council

(Case T‑59/19)

(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 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant 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 applicant.

Operative part

1. The action is dismissed.